Saturday, September 20, 2008

How to teach Creationism

Some guys named Jimmy Hobbs and Joel Fanti are enjoying their 15 minutes of fame after a Wilmington, North Carolina area school board meeting:

The Brunswick County school board is looking for a way for creationism to be taught in the classroom side by side with evolution.

by Ana Ribeiro


"It's really a disgrace for the state school board to impose evolution on our students without teaching creationism," county school board member Jimmy Hobbs said at Tuesday's meeting. "The law says we can't have Bibles in schools, but we can have evolution, of the atheists."
This makes me so insane on so many levels. Evolution is no more atheistic than linguistics and optics are atheistic. It's like saying that gravity is libertarian, or that death is illiterate.

Evolution is an explanation of how species have changed and developed through a process that took millions of years. Unless God chooses to reveal himself/herself, it's the only explanation out there.


I've been in and out of churches that had varying degrees of loyalty to the Biblical stories most of my life. I've taught the stories to kids - in some of the least dogmatic ways possible - as narratives about what life might mean.
But they aren't science !
You can go to seminaries (as I did briefly) and learn that they didn't happen ! They are metaphorical, not factual.
Here's more Ana Robeiro:

When asked by a reporter, his fellow board members all said they were in favor of creationism being taught in the classroom.

Oh, for the love of God. All of them said that? The whole school board?
The topic came up after county resident Joel Fanti told the board he thought it was unfair for evolution to be taught as fact, saying it should be taught as a theory because there's no tangible proof it's true.
"I wasn't here 2 million years ago," Fanti said. "If evolution is so slow, why don't we see anything evolving now?"
Please, please, please let that be a typo. "If evolution is so slow, why don't we see anything evolving now?" Joel, you don't see anything evolving because it IS so slow.

The board allowed Fanti to speak longer than he was allowed, and at the end of his speech he volunteered to teach creationism and received applause from the audience. When he walked away, school board Chairwoman Shirley Babson took the podium and said another state had tried to teach evolution and creationism together and failed, and that the school system must teach by the law.
If Mr. Fanti or Ms. Babson need help teaching creationism, let me propose the following lesson plan:

Give the class a copy of Genesis, Chapter 1, and Chapter 2, verses 1-3, along with the following outline:

Genesis 1:1-5 God said "Let there be light"
Genesis 1:6-8 God then created the Firmament, or "layers of sky" (as it was then understood) Genesis 1:9-13 Next, God made land, water, trees and plants
Genesis 1:14-19 God then made the sun, moon, and stars (disregard that he created "light" in verse one)
Genesis 1: 20-23 Fish and birds are created
Genesis 1:24-31 God made cattle, creeping things, and finally, man.

Discuss the writing style. The students will probably agree that the author of Genesis chapter one is giving a dry, somewhat bland account of God's actions at the beginning of time.

Discuss the lack of original manuscripts for the book of Genesis.

Discuss the difficulty of translating unpunctuated Hebrew.

Discuss the order in which God created life on earth: light, sky, land, water, plants, sun, moon, and stars, fish, birds, cattle and other wildlife, and man. Write this sequence on the blackboard or dry erase board as a timeline.

Ask a volunteer to read the first three verses of Genesis 2:1-3 to the class.

1 Thus the heavens and the earth were completed in all their vast array.
2 By the seventh day God had finished the work he had been doing; so on the seventh day he rested from all his work.

3 And God blessed the seventh day and made it holy, because on it he rested from all the work of creating that he had done.

Ask the students if they understand this to be the creationist explanation for the origins of all life and all species. Ask if they know the meaning of the word "infallible". Ask if "infallibility" could apply to this narrative. Discuss at great length. Be gentle.

Distribute the text of Genesis 2:4-9.

4 This is the account of the heavens and the earth when they were created. When the LORD God made the earth and the heavens-
5 and no shrub of the field had yet appeared on the earth and no plant of the field had yet sprung up, for the LORD God had not sent rain on the earth and there was no man to work the ground,
6 but streams came up from the earth and watered the whole surface of the ground,
7 the LORD God formed the man from the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living being.
8 Now the LORD God had planted a garden in the east, in Eden; and there he put the man he had formed.

9 And the LORD God made all kinds of trees grow out of the ground—trees that were pleasing to the eye and good for food. In the middle of the garden were the tree of life and the tree of the knowledge of good and evil.
10 A river watering the garden flowed from Eden; from there it was separated into four headwaters.
11 The name of the first is the Pishon; it winds through the entire land of Havilah, where there is gold.
12 (The gold of that land is good; aromatic resin and onyx are also there.)
13 The name of the second river is the Gihon; it winds through the entire land of Cush.
14 The name of the third river is the Tigris; it runs along the east side of Asshur. And the fourth river is the Euphrates.
15 The LORD God took the man and put him in the Garden of Eden to work it and take care of it.

16 And the LORD God commanded the man, "You are free to eat from any tree in the garden; 17 but you must not eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, for when you eat of it you will surely die."
18 The LORD God said, "It is not good for the man to be alone. I will make a helper suitable for him."
19 Now the LORD God had formed out of the ground all the beasts of the field and all the birds of the air. He brought them to the man to see what he would name them; and whatever the man called each living creature, that was its name.

20 So the man gave names to all the livestock, the birds of the air and all the beasts of the field. But for Adam no suitable helper was found.
21 So the LORD God caused the man to fall into a deep sleep; and while he was sleeping, he took one of the man's ribs and closed up the place with flesh.
22 Then the LORD God made a woman from the rib he had taken out of the man, and he brought her to the man.

Ask the class if Genesis chapter 2 seems to offer a contradictory account from chapter 1.

Discuss the writing style. Ask which story uses more emotion.

Ask why chapter one, in this translation, consistently uses the word "God", and chapter two always uses the phrase "the LORD God".

Explain that the original Hebrew word for God used in chapter one is "Elohim", while chapter two uses the word "Yahweh". Ask if the writers were talking about the same Deity. Ask one of the music geeks in the class to give the current definition of the word "mashup".

Mention the differences in writing style between, say, Shakespeare and Snoop Dogg. Ask what makes their writing distinctive and recognizable. Then ask the class if they think the first Genesis story and the second Genesis story were written by the same person. Be gentle.

Return to your blackboard timeline from Genesis chapter 1. Create a second timeline based on the account in Genesis chapter 2. Note the contradictions. Once again, be gentle.

Homework assignment: Ask the students to write a 250 word essay about which timeline is more convincing. Give 5 extra points for the correct use of the word "infallible" in each essay.

When grading, be very gentle. You are planting a seed. It will grow.

End of lesson plan.

Mr. Hobbs and Mr. Fanti, are you sure that you want North Carolina's biology professors to teach creationism? Or do you think that the Bible should be taught in churches, and science should be taught in schools?

31 comments:

Leo said...

i agree 100% this is just to get peoples minds off the real problems we are faced with, like economy and possibility of war for no real reason. Just because the laws can be circumvented when done properly and that the gov will now bail us out, atually BUSH is allowing it to happen, and noone will let impeachment pass because then if we have Obama in office so soon we wont see the bailouts result in the same outcome as we are seeing now. The billionairres of the world know this and that is how it is so obvious to see that the GOV is just one big coorporation that leans toward whatever side it is being persuaded to lean to, this case toward the greed of the few. Teaching creationism will prolong this idiocracy and if anything keep us in a state of mental limbo for as long as they need to get their pockets full and run away laughing.

Look at it this way... creationism is bush and evolution is not bush... NOT BUSH > BUSH...

so either way evolution is better tan creationism.
gg nore thx

glennanderson said...

I would suggest Jimmy and Joel read about the Dover trail, atleast they tried to present it as "science" in the form of Intelligent Design.

I mean, if they want to teach creationism they have to teach all form of creationism. Looking at you Mr. Flying Spaghetti Monster.

Oh ye of little understanding Board of Education...

Baconeater said...

America is embarrassing amongst Western nations when it comes to their persistence in denying evolution.

fembuttx said...

Even though I am a Sunday School teaching Methodist, I get very irritated when the Bible is interpreted as literal fact. As you thoroughly illustrated, there are a many items that are not spoken about in the bible, and yet they do exist. I don't ever remember any discussion in the Bible specifically about oxygen and carbon dioxide. These two things undeniably exist in our universe, but are not mentioned in the Bible...So, should dismiss existence of the air we breathe?

The Whited Sepulchre said...

OMG, Fembuttx is a Methodist Sunday School teacher.

The Methodist Church going from John Wesley to Fembuttx is NOT the evolutionary process that Charles Darwin had in mind....

fembuttx said...

LOL...IT is very hard to keep to the text. But since I am in my church that I love, I keep my thoughts and theories to myself. I dont teach the little ones about the dinasours found in South Dakota, that is up to the schools today. John Wesley would be proud.

Gar said...

I was force-fed Church of Christ from the time I was 0 to the time I was 18 and I never noticed until now that God created the light a couple of days before he created the Sun. Thanks for clearing that up.

Mats said...

Oh no, not the defunct canard "Gen 1 contradicts Gen 2"! You should get updated "contradictions", mate.

How to teach creationism to evolutionized kids
1. Ask the student if he knows of anything that has ever started to exist by itself.
2. Ask him if he thinks if the universe started to exist by itself.
3. Be gentle.
4. Ask if dogs always give birth to dogs.
5. Ask if was there ever any violation of this principle (i.e., dogs coming from non-dogs)
6. Ask where did the first dog came from.
7. Be gentle with the evolutionist student.
8. Ask if coded information ever apears by itself out of nowhere.
9. Ask where did the coded information in living systems came from.
10. Be gentle always! You are planting the seeds of doubt. It will grow.
11. Ask if reptiles always give birth to reptiles.
12. Ask if birds come from anything other than a bird.
13. Ask why does he think that in the past dinossaurs evolved into birds, going against what we can empirically observe today.
14. Ask him if observations are above interpretations.
15. Ask him if the evolutonary interpretation is above empirical observation.

After you have demolished his faith in Darwin, ask him this:
16. Since codes always come from minds, and given the overwhelming complexity of the tiniest cell, aren't observations in agreement with Genesis 1?
17. Since there is no "natural" DNA designer, isn't the evidence pushing us to the "Supernatural"?
18. Should we ignore a scientific conclusion only because it goes against our philosophy of life (atheism) ?

Remember: always be gentle. Rerun the same questions when you start finding some resistent.

De-programing can be a painful experience.

God bless

Rick said...

Oh no, not the defunct canard "Gen 1 contradicts Gen 2"! You should get updated "contradictions", mate.

How to teach creationism to evolutionized kids
1. Ask the student if he knows of anything that has ever started to exist by itself.
2. Ask him if he thinks if the universe started to exist by itself.
3. Be gentle.
4. Ask if dogs always give birth to dogs.
5. Ask if was there ever any violation of this principle (i.e., dogs coming from non-dogs)
6. Ask where did the first dog came from.
7. Be gentle with the evolutionist student.
8. Ask if coded information ever apears by itself out of nowhere.
9. Ask where did the coded information in living systems came from.
10. Be gentle always! You are planting the seeds of doubt. It will grow.
11. Ask if reptiles always give birth to reptiles.
12. Ask if birds come from anything other than a bird.
13. Ask why does he think that in the past dinossaurs evolved into birds, going against what we can empirically observe today.
14. Ask him if observations are above interpretations.
15. Ask him if the evolutonary interpretation is above empirical observation.

After you have demolished his faith in Darwin, ask him this:
16. Since codes always come from minds, and given the overwhelming complexity of the tiniest cell, aren't observations in agreement with Genesis 1?
17. Since there is no "natural" DNA designer, isn't the evidence pushing us to the "Supernatural"?
18. Should we ignore a scientific conclusion only because it goes against our philosophy of life (atheism) ?

Remember: always be gentle. Rerun the same questions when you start finding some resistent.

De-programing can be a painful experience.

God bless

1. Quantum vacuum fluctuations http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_fluctuation

2. See 1. and read up on quantum vacuum fluctuations and theories concerning their application to the big bang.

3. No

4., 5., 6. Define Dog. This is a semantic term invented by humans to label a large spectrum of organisms. Remove the semantics and see it as just a collection of varying organisms. Any dog breeder can tell you that it is possible to breed characteristics in dogs. Continue to evolve those characteristics over millions of years...

7. No

8. http://www.iscid.org/encyclopedia/Abiogenesis

9. See 8.

10. No

11., 12. See 4., 5., 6.

More to follow when I have time

The Whited Sepulchre said...

Mats,
My contradictions are just about as updated as serious Biblical scholarship can be. It's difficult to find a seminary or Biblical studies program that doesn't give the JEDP Hypothesis some serious study. In reference to your teaching outline....

1. If you're implying that something can't begin to exist by itself, you're going into territory that denies the possibility of God.
2. If the answer is "no", ask "Who made God?"
3. Always, always be gentle in these discussions. You are asking the students to abandon something that, in some cases, is central to their families, their communities, and their sense of morality. Agreed. And MATS, glad to have you on this site !
4. See what Rick said below. "Dog" is a collection of characteristics. You can breed characteristics into, or out of a species. For instance, when European settlers landed in North America, corn was growing wild. Now we only have domestic varieties that didn't exist at that time. Ditto for rice and soybeans. These varities wouldn't exist if we hadn't bred them, and the couldn't exist on the wild without us.
Did you ever ask yourself, "When Did Wild Poodles Roam The Earth?"
And next time you get a virus, ask your doctor if the virus existed in that form last year.
6. Ask the students if they know the difference between a process and an event. Reference the poodles from question #5.
7. Yes, be gentle. Many of the students will see the Creation Myths as Foundational Truths that keep them from going down a slippery slope of scriptural relativism. For them to deny the historical accuracy of the Genesis accounts is to deny the existence of God. Remember, you're asking a lot from them. Be patient. You'll be tempted to bring up the Creation Myths of other cultures. Don't do it yet.
8. If the students are Creationists, ask the students what raw material God used to make the world.
9. Ask the students if they've read "The Blind Watchmaker" by Richard Dawkins.
10. If you're in the mood to plant some seeds of doubt, tell the students that you have an ancient book from Hong Kong. This book describes a 7-day creation of the earth by a God named Hui-Tsu. Hui-Tsu made the earth, the animals, man and woman. Everything was perfect on earth until an evil donkey named Lo-Hui tempted the woman with a bowl of rice, and the woman succumbed to the temptation, bringing evil into the world.
Ask the students what standard of proof would be needed before they could accept that story as fact.
11. See #4, about the dogs.
12. Ditto.
13. Present the students with the following question: If the average U.S. soldier is 5" taller than the average soldier who fought in the Civil War (140 years ago), how much change is possible in the course of billions of years?
14. If there are Creationist Students in the classroom, ask them if the author(s) of Genesis "observed" the creation.
15. Remind the students that evolution (except in the case of tiny organisms, like viruses) happens too slowly to be observed.
16. Ask the students if our superstitious primitive ancestors, who huddled in caves for warmth, ate raw meat, and went a loooong time without figuring out The Wheel....ask if these ancestors had the same "mental code" that we do.
17. Ask the students if there are good reasons to prefer one mythical account of creation and the origin of evil over any other. For instance, why would someone believe the story of Pandora's Box instead of the story of Eve and The Apple and The Talking Serpent?
18. Is it possible to believe in a Creator of some sort without having an unwavering belief in the fables of nomadic tribesmen? (I say "yes".)

The Promiscuous Reader said...

That's a good post, and I also support what Gerald Graff has called "teaching the conflicts." The main trouble I see with such a program is that you're asking biology teachers to teach biblical criticism, and I don't think that is a good idea. Better if the unit could be team-taught with someone who knows what they're talking about, preferably as conservative but competent as possible on biblical matters. ("Competent," I think, speaks for itself; "conservative" so that the conservative kids in the class will find it harder to dismiss her.)

Another thing I wonder about is whether most high-school biology teachers really understand neo-Darwinian theory. A lot of Creationism-dissers I encounter don't: they think, for example, that evolution is an upwards-linear process, moving progressively from one-celled critters to the highest critter, Man. In order to be able to teach the conflicts you have to understand the different positions quite well, and I'm not sure it will be easy to find enough teachers who can do it.

Oh, and that last remark about "the fables of nomadic tribesmen." I'm not absolutely up to date on Tanakh criticism, but the last I heard, the Tanakh wasn't written by nomadic tribesmen. Nor did it draw on their "fables." There's a fair amount of literary sophistication in the Biblical material, suggesting that in their own historical and social context the writers were as smart as, say, the late Steven Jay Gould today. (Not Dawkins, who doesn't seem to be all that sharp.) I hope that if you were teaching this issue to schoolkids, you could keep such cheap shots out of it.

The Whited Sepulchre said...

Promiscuous,
Most of the conflict about teaching creationism stems from those who believe that the first 5 books of the Jewish Scriptures, The Old Testament, or whatever you want to call Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy - are literally true.
Well, they aren't.
How do I know?
Because snakes can't talk.
Therefore, if they have any teaching/enlightening/instructive value, it is as mythology or as "fable". Not always a bad term.

Second, these books are widely referred to as "the books of Moses". This is an article of faith for many fundamentalist Christians.
If the book of Exodus is to be believed, then Moses was a nomadic tribesman. 40 years worth.

LarryE said...

Haven't been by for a while and got here via Jon Swift's compilation.

It's an interesting take on the whole business but of course it wouldn't fly in actual practice because it still amounts to teaching religion in schools, even if that teaching is to demolish certain foolish notions of using the Bible to attack science.

I did suggest something similar not too long ago which took the tack of spending the first day of a unit on evolution considering what constitutes "science" and a second asking if, by that understanding, creationism, intelligent design, or evolution quality as science - which of course only the latter does.

Finally, three quick comments on Mats' comment:

1. He (I'm assuming it's he because "Mats" struck me as a variation on "Matt." If I'm wrong in my assumption, I apologize.) says the argument of contradictions is a "defunct canard" but offers no basis for that.

2. His entire argument against evolution - and this is important because this is almost always the only argument advanced - is a celebration of ignorance. That is, any question that can't be conclusively answered now gets turned into "then God must have done it." It is an argument that not only denies the possibility of additional knowledge, it positively rejects it.

3. He says "Rerun the same questions when you start finding some resistent [sic]." That is, even if you get answers to your questions, simply ignore them and repeat the same questions over and over again as if the answers had never come.

Give him this, then: He not only celebrates ignorance, he practices it.

Cedric Katesby said...

"His entire argument against evolution - and this is important because this is almost always the only argument advanced - is a celebration of ignorance."

Sums it up nicely.

arachnophilia said...

"Because snakes can't talk. "

no no, you see, genesis 3 clearly explains why snakes can't talk: their tongues are otherwise occupied, licking the ground. you're missing the "just so story" aspect.

also, genesis 2 does, indeed, also use the word elohim. the difference between the two chapters is that chapter 2 (from J) consistently uses yahweh elohim where chapter 1 (from P) consistently uses elohim. one was written after it fell out of practice to use the divine name. the move is possibly out of reverence (as with modern jewish substition of adonai etc) or possibly because the authors at this point did not feel the need to specify which god. curiously, even E uses yahweh. it only avoids doing so before the name is revealed to moses.

anyway. as you point out, the "contradictions" are anything but defunct: we know a great deal about the texts and their sources specifically because of the differences. to deprive the text of these aspects is to deprive it of all individual voice; of texture and flavor and intent and style. homogenizing the bible is sort of like homogenizing a 7 course meal. it kinda comes out like barf.

i'm actually all for teaching the bible, just not in a science (or history) classroom. but as literature, it can be very interesting. and VERY hard to get past the preconceptions of the students.

defaithed said...

Looks like "Mats" turned tail and ran. Probably out of ammunition (i.e., fired both brain cells).

Cedric Katesby said...

This is the best way to read Genesis...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NaEj3g5GOYA
Enjoy.
:)

Mats said...

"Looks like "Mats" turned tail and ran."

No. I have no need to expand on the questions I made. Most logical and willing people can see that the darwinian myth is clearly outside the bounds of empirical science. Lizards that magically turn into birds is a fairytale.

Monkeys that learn to write opera and music is a good story, but it's clearly false.

But you go right ahead believing in that, all the way to the fire of hell.

REPOSTING

How to teach creationism to evolutionized kids.
1. Ask the student if he knows of anything that has ever started to exist by itself.
2. Ask him if he thinks if the universe started to exist by itself.
3. Be gentle.
4. Ask if dogs always give birth to dogs.
5. Ask if was there ever any violation of this principle (i.e., dogs coming from non-dogs)
6. Ask where did the first dog came from.
7. Be gentle with the evolutionist student.
8. Ask if coded information ever apears by itself out of nowhere.
9. Ask where did the coded information in living systems came from.
10. Be gentle always! You are planting the seeds of doubt. It will grow.
11. Ask if reptiles always give birth to reptiles.
12. Ask if birds come from anything other than a bird.
13. Ask why does he think that in the past dinossaurs evolved into birds, going against what we can empirically observe today.
14. Ask him if observations are above interpretations.
15. Ask him if the evolutonary interpretation is above empirical observation.

After you have demolished his faith in Darwin, ask him this:
16. Since codes always come from minds, and given the overwhelming complexity of the tiniest cell, aren't observations in agreement with Genesis 1?
17. Since there is no "natural" DNA designer, isn't the evidence pushing us to the "Supernatural"?
18. Should we ignore a scientific conclusion only because it goes against our philosophy of life (atheism) ?

Remember: always be gentle. Rerun the same questions when you start finding some resistent.

De-programing can be a painful experience.

God bless

shwu said...

@Mats:

"Most logical and willing people can see that the darwinian myth is clearly outside the bounds of empirical science. Lizards that magically turn into birds is a fairytale."

Actually, natural selection can be observed empirically. Creationism, however, has not been observed empirically. So one of these is clearly outside the bounds of empirical science. I agree that lizards magically turning into birds is a fairytale. There is no magic in evolution, however (other than the awe we feel when we realize how interconnected all life on this planet is). We have copious evidence that organisms change over time due to accumulated mutations, and this logically can cause something that is like a lizard, over many millions of years, to gradually become something like a bird. We see this on a very small scale with viruses that evolve resistance to drugs, and on a larger scale with dogs, cats, plants, and other domesticated organisms. Given enough time (i.e. millions of years), the resulting organism can differ from the original so much that they can no longer interbreed - thus representing a new species. The mutations themselves are random, but the accumulation is often the result of natural selection (or genetic drift). It's really very logical, and therefore beautiful, and no magic is needed.

Snakes talking, evil trees, and a man in the sky that magically makes things appear, however, does sound like a fairytale, especially since we have no evidence for any of those things. Science seeks to explain natural phenomena through the gathering and analysis of empirical physical evidence. Creationism shuns empirical physical evidence and thus it belongs in a very different classroom - theology, perhaps.

By the way, your god blessings might be better received if they didn't come with an invitation to a fiery hell. Jus' sayin'.

The Whited Sepulchre said...

MATS,

I woke up this morning and realized that I haven't been following my own advice. I've neglected to as you the question that I want the biology teachers to ask.

Of the two creation accounts and orders of events detailed in Genesis 1 and Genesis 2.... which one do you believe is accurate?

MrBold said...

Awesome post White Sepulchre. I came here via Pharyngula.

And congrats on attracting a fundie! Maybe MATS will stick around long enough to get some free education.

Mats said...

SHWU saith:
"@Mats:
"Most logical and willing people can see that the darwinian myth is clearly outside the bounds of empirical science. Lizards that magically turn into birds is a fairytale."

Actually, natural selection can be observed empirically."


Whyy are you changing the topic? The issue is not "has natural selection been observed" but "have lizards turning into birds been observed?"

I repeat: Lizards that magically turn into birds is a fairytale.

"I agree that lizards magically turning into birds is a fairytale. There is no magic in evolution, however (other than the awe we feel when we realize how interconnected all life on this planet is).

hehehe So lizards turning into birds is a fairytale EXCEPT if evolution says that it isn't.

Yes, life is interconnected. However, it is not conected by common descent by Commom Designer.

"We have copious evidence that organisms change over time due to accumulated mutations, and this logically can cause something that is like a lizard, over many millions of years, to gradually become something like a bird.

Organisms do change due to mutations, but they don't stop being from the same basic kind. Dogs suffer mutations but remain dogs. They don't turn into whales. Lizards suffer mutations but remain liizards. They don't turn into birds.

So basically your answer is "lizards turning into birds is a fairytale, but if evolution says it, then it must be true".

"We see this on a very small scale with viruses that evolve resistance to drugs,"

...by loosing genetic information, not by gaining it.

and on a larger scale with dogs, cats, plants, and other domesticated organisms.

Yes. dogs evolve into....dogs, cats evolve into ....hmm... cats, and so on and so on.

"Given enough time (i.e. millions of years), the resulting organism can differ from the original so much that they can no longer interbreed - thus representing a new species.

Speciation is not evolution, and speciation is in agreement with creation theory.

"The mutations themselves are random, but the accumulation is often the result of natural selection (or genetic drift)."

The novelty into the genome is caused by RANDOMNESS. NAtural selection is a filter not a creative force.

The Whited Sepulchre said...

MATS,
Once again, I gotta ask.
Of the two orders of creation listed in Genesis 1 and 2, which do you believe is most accurate?

What's your problem? Do you not really believe that "every jot and tittle" (Google it) is inspired?

Dang it, why do you continue to show up in class without your homework?

I've tried being gentle. I don't know where you're dragging this other stuff in from, but it's not what the teacher requested. I know it's been a great sacrifice for you to accumulate, but that's not your homework assignment.

Go back home and lock yourself in with a copy of 1 Samuel 15:22 (To obey is better than to sacrifice.)

Then come back in here in an obedient frame of mind, ready to let us know which creation account is the correct one.

Anonymous said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Mats said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
The Whited Sepulchre said...

Matt,
No, I don't.
You can see it commented on in the works of Voltaire and Tom Paine, I believe.
Also, the Jewish tradition doesn't buy into the "inspired and inerrant" bidness in the same way as the American tradition.

And stating that there aren't two different orders does not make it so. Write them down. In the order they are given. Look at the language. Look at the names for God.

The Whited Sepulchre said...

Mats,
I apologize. I was deleting spam and accidentally nuked your comment also.
Please redo.

Mats said...

No, I don't. My question was if you wanted to see how scientists and theologians deal with that "problem". You say you don't want to see a christian and jewish clarification of it? Is that right? You make a point and then you don't want to get a full and orderly reply from reputable people?

You can see it commented on in the works of Voltaire and Tom Paine, I believe.
Yes, I am sure I can. So?

Also, the Jewish tradition doesn't buy into the "inspired and inerrant" bidness in the same way as the American tradition.
You must be talking about a new "jewish tradition", since historically, jewish theologians never had problems in seeing that Genesis 1 and 2 are the same event told difirently.


And stating that there aren't two different orders does not make it so.
The opposite aswell.

Write them down. In the order they are given.
The order is in Genesis 1. Want me to repost the chapter?

Look at the language. Look at the names for God.
Oh, no the defunct JEPD nonsence. You should update your polemics, friend. I have an article about that too. Do you want it?

The Whited Sepulchre said...

Ok, Mats,

If chapter one says things happened in sequence 1,2,3,and 4 but chapter two claims the sequence was 1,4,2,3, does that make a contradiction?

My Voltaire and Tom Paine reference was to something in your (regretably deleted) comment about how long the contradictions between chapters one and two had been noted.

Agreed on the Jewish theologians. The event is told very differently in the two chapters. Let me know if I'm putting words into your mouth.

We might be at an impasse on the two different orders of creation. If I witness a car wreck and claim that a man in a blue truck hit an Asian lady while she was walking across the street, then stole her purse, and then pulled out his cell phone and made a call, then that story makes sense.

If another witness claims that a man in a blue truck was parked on the street making a call on his cell phone, then robbed a laday, and then hit her with his truck, then that's a contradiction between the two witnesses, correct?

Can we agree on that much, just as it relates to that one (non-blblical) scenario?

On the JEPD scenarios....it's somewhat difficult, in the year 2009, to graduate from Vacation Bible School without being taught the JEPD concept. It's the best way that biblical scholars have found to explain the obvious contradictions.

Mats said...

If chapter one says things happened in sequence 1,2,3,and 4 but chapter two claims the sequence was 1,4,2,3, does that make a contradiction?
My friend, aren't you assuming that the second account contradicts the first? You want me to answer within your unsubstatianted assumptions, while I am questioning them
I repeat my question, do you want to see how scientists and theologians show that there is no contradition between chapters 1 and 2?

Agreed on the Jewish theologians. The event is told very differently in the two chapters. Let me know if I'm putting words into your mouth.
Ah, but now you say that they are told diferently, while you claim is that they contradict. As you probably know, saying things in a diferent fashion doesn't mean automatically contradiction.

On the JEPD scenarios....it's somewhat difficult, in the year 2009, to graduate from Vacation Bible School without being taught the JEPD concept.
Oh, I agree, but the Vatican's interpretation contradicts its own ancient scholars.
Besides, being taught something doesn't mean it's true. Children are taught that dinossaurs evolved into birds, but it doesn't mean it's true, just like being taught that Piltdown Man was "evidence" for evolution didn't make it true.

It's the best way that biblical scholars have found to explain the obvious contradictions.
You mean, it's the best naturalistic, un-Scriptural, un-Christian, self-refuting way that people who don't believe in the Bible from Genesis to Revelation have found to accomodate their worldview with what they think happened in the past.

The "best way" to acomodate the "obvious" contradictions in the Bible is to do some research, and see what Jews and Christians always believed.

Oh, and it wouldn't hurt to read the Bible.

The Whited Sepulchre said...

MATS,
Yes, show me all, give me all. Bring it forth.
But please tell me how both stories can be an account (divinely inspired, and without error) of the same event.