Should We Teach Creation As Science In Public Schools?

[coffee4u]

A couple of the common assumptions (added ideas not in scripture) that young Earth theories in effect add on top of scripture:

1) that little or no time passed when God created all the Universe during Gen 1:1 before the moment in Gen 1:2. In reality we are not told in scripture how much time passed during the events in verse 1 before verse 2.
Why aren't we told? Because we do not need to know for our souls and for our relationship with God. It's not the point of scripture to teach us mere physics and mere geology and mere biology sciences -- all of which are ultimately trivial compared to God and our relationship with Him.

And a couple of assumptions held by multiple creation theorists/traditional gap theorists/God used evolution theorists is that a large amount of time past.
"we are not told in scripture how much time passed"
Exactly. Meaning it could be no time, a small amount of time or a long time.

The length of time doesn't matter -because nothing happened.
If the earth sat formless and empty for 1 second, a year or a million years doesn't matter, because nothing changed it simply sat. This was before the creation week.
In fact this was probably before God even created time.

2) that the Tree of Life in the Garden (chapters 2, 3, and in heaven forever: Revelation last chapter) had no effect (!??!), and thus that Adam was aging in the Garden before he ate the fruit that would make him subject to death (!??!) (Genesis chapter 2), and therefore that the time in Garden for Adam was part of his total years of life. (every notion that we can just assume the Garden of Eden time was little or no time are using this kind of assumption)

Yes it's in heaven because creation was a shadow of what is to come.

We know he didn't age because the Bible says sin brought in death. Before sin there was no death.

We also know it was a very short time because God told them to be fruitful and multiply and there was no pregnancy in the garden. That isn't an assumption, that is a fact.

This assumption/added idea clearly contradicts the sense of chapters 2 and 3, where Adam is warned not to eat that fruit or he will become subject to death after eating it (not before!). In reality we have no idea how much ordinary time passed in the outside Earth while Adam walked with the Eternal One and with the Tree of Life nearby!

Day 4
14 And God said, “Let there be lights in the vault of the sky to separate the day from the night, and let them serve as signs to mark sacred times, and days and years

This is most likely when God brought in time. So we do know that time was passing on the earth from this point on.


--------

While YEC disobeys direct commands from God not to add to scripture, it also distracts people away (including the lost that don't yet have Christ) from seeking God and learning of Christ, their only hope of salvation.

How dare you accuse us of that when you are claiming a long age that has no scriptural backup. Find me one verse that says millions of years or a long gap, just one. If you have none you have no case.

 

[jamesbond007]

No. No science supports it and the bible is not evidence that can be tested.

Wrong. We find science backs up the Bible even though it's not a science book.

Dr. Louis Pasteur debunked spontaneous generation and abiogenesis. Dr. Jonathan Wells debunked Urey-Miller experiment which was had wrong assumptions about primordial Earth (flimsy) to begin with. Thus, no scientific method has supported evolution.

OTOH, we have had creation scientist Dr. Louis Pasteur showing only life begets life. Gregor Mendel demonstrating his laws of inheritance and laws of segregation. We also had James Watt who invented the steam engine and started the Industrial Revolution.

Even creationist Sir Francis Bacon created the scientific method.

Creation scientists have done more for science in history than today. Otherwise, name a few things that evolution scientists have tested.

 

[JackRT]

Dr. Louis Pasteur debunked spontaneous generation and abiogenesis.

Pasteur certainly disproved spontaneous generation but abiogenesis is still a viable hypothesis with ongoing research in progress.

 

[Halbhh]

And a couple of assumptions held by multiple creation theorists/traditional gap theorists/God used evolution theorists is that a large amount of time past.
"we are not told in scripture how much time passed"
Exactly. Meaning it could be no time, a small amount of time or a long time.

The length of time doesn't matter -because nothing happened.
If the earth sat formless and empty for 1 second, a year or a million years doesn't matter, because nothing changed it simply sat. This was before the creation week.
In fact this was probably before God even created time.





Yes it's in heaven because creation was a shadow of what is to come.

We know he didn't age because the Bible says sin brought in death. Before sin there was no death.

We also know it was a very short time because God told them to be fruitful and multiply and there was no pregnancy in the garden. That isn't an assumption, that is a fact.



Day 4
14 And God said, “Let there be lights in the vault of the sky to separate the day from the night, and let them serve as signs to mark sacred times, and days and years

This is most likely when God brought in time. So we do know that time was passing on the earth from this point on.


--------



How dare you accuse us of that when you are claiming a long age that has no scriptural backup. Find me one verse that says millions of years or a long gap, just one. If you have none you have no case.

Everyone should refrain from preaching their age of Earth theories as if scripture, and let scripture tell us what is truly important. . Have a good evening.

 

[JacksBratt]

If Christian parents want their children taught creation science, they should do that in Sunday School.. Its the perfect venue.

Then we should lie to them in schools?

How about this:
Tell the kids that there are two theories on how the world came to be so ask your parents. None of that has anything to do with Reading, Riting or Rithmatic... nor geography that is being taught in grades 1 to 8. Maybe if they stuck to reality of the three R's... our kids would get to high school being able to read, write and do some math and know where their city is on a map of the world.

Hard science, biology, chemistry etc is very demanding..

Hard science is things like why airplanes fly and why your car needs oil, How oxygen gets to your cells and why you don't add ammonia to drain cleaner.. why a prism makes a rainbow and why hammering metal makes it harder..

It's NOT the spontaneous formation of a complex substance like DNA or how an amoeba turned into a peacock over billions of years.

I am assuming that some Christian private schools also teach creation science so there is also that option.

Yes, there is, because some parents still demand sound doctrine and not the tickling of the ears.

I know... We paid for our kids to be taught bible based truth and how God is in everything from Math to biology to music to nature.... to everlasting life.

I went to a private religious girl's school that is almost 200 years old and they don't teach creation science. They do offer Bible as an elective.

Just wondering.. What kind of "private religious school" offered a bible course as an elective? No offense just seems odd to me.

The private Christian school that we sent our kids to had the bible woven into every subject.

 

[JacksBratt]

This is faulty thinking. Creationism isn't being taught in schools anymore; It's evolution.

You are correct. Unless you pay for private school and search one that teaches it.

 

[LoG]

Tohu wah bohu simply means unformed and empty! It does not imply like some insist that the earth "became" empty and desolate.

From Strongs Hebrew Dictionary:

tôhû
From an unused root meaning to lie waste; a desolation (of surface), that is, desert; figuratively a worthless thing; adverbially in vain: - confusion, empty place, without form, nothing, (thing of) nought, vain, vanity, waste, wilderness.

bôhû
From an unused root (meaning to be empty); a vacuity, that is, (superficially) an undistinguishable ruin: - emptiness, void.

The word for "darkness" is:

chôshek
From H2821; the dark; hence (literally) darkness; figuratively misery, destruction, death, ignorance, sorrow, wickedness: - dark (-ness), night, obscurity.

and the one for the "deep" is
tehôm tehôm

(Usually feminine) from H1949; an abyss (as a surging mass of water), especially the deep (the main sea or the subterranean water supply): - deep (place), depth.

Each of those words in other parts of the bible are used predominantly with a negative connotation, mostly where something has been destroyed and under some sort of divine condemnation. Combined together in one verse it paints a grim picture of the state of what must have been the complete and perfect creation in verse 1.
In the spirit of scripture interpreting scripture, there is a parallel in Jeremiah 4 where it speaks of Judah's desolation:

Jer 4:23 I beheld the earth, and, lo, it was without form, and void; and the heavens, and they had no light.
Jer 4:24 I beheld the mountains, and, lo, they trembled, and all the hills moved lightly.
Jer 4:25 I beheld, and, lo, there was no man, and all the birds of the heavens were fled.
Jer 4:26 I beheld, and, lo, the fruitful place was a wilderness, and all the cities thereof were broken down at the presence of the LORD, and by his fierce anger.
Jer 4:27 For thus hath the LORD said, The whole land shall be desolate; yet will I not make a full end.
Jer 4:28 For this shall the earth mourn, and the heavens above be black: because I have spoken it, I have purposed it, and will not repent, neither will I turn back from it.

To make sure we don't get the idea that the Lord created it this way, we are specifically told in:
Isa 45:18 For thus saith the LORD that created the heavens; God himself that formed the earth and made it; he hath established it, he created it not in vain, he formed it to be inhabited: I am the LORD; and there is none else.

To me that strongly speaks of a period of time between the creation in verse 1 and the destruction and chaos we see in verse 2 requiring a reconstruction from verse 3 onwards.

Thiose who adhere to this as believers fall into one of these camps:

1. Precreation rebellion of the devil and his angels that ruined the earth (ruin and restoration theory)
2. Pre Adamic creation that covers the dinosaurs and early hominids.

Assume and believe what you want of other people's motivation for accepting a gap theology, some of us simply do because there is strong scriptural evidence for it, regardless of whether it allows evolution a foot in the door. From what i see, most of the TE's take genesis as allegorical or day/age anyway so I don't think it particularly matters to them. Myself I am a creationist who takes the bible literally in those places where we are meant to but I have accepted the possibility of previous creations for 50 or so years without delving into what that might have looked like.

On topic, which version of Creation should be taught in schools if that was going to be allowed?

 

[JacksBratt]

A
Day 4
14 And God said, “Let there be lights in the vault of the sky to separate the day from the night, and let them serve as signs to mark sacred times, and days and years

This is most likely when God brought in time. So we do know that time was passing on the earth from this point on.

I believe that God brought in time right when He stated "there was evening, there was morning, the first day".

 

[summerville]

This is faulty thinking. Creationism isn't being taught in schools anymore; It's evolution.

I have never known an accredited school that taught creation science. Churches that believe it should teach it. Maybe for an hour on Wednesday night.. Couldn't last more than six weeks.

 

[Sleepy089]

Creation science is backed by the scientific method, so it should be taught in schools. Part of the problem is science today only accepts what is natural in the physical world. It is based on the philosophy of empiricism, but today's science does not follow it nor is it backed by the scientific method. What today's science of evolution is backed by is consensus and circumstantial forensic evidence. Why only evolution is taught in schools is because today's science does not allow for a supernatural creator to be involved in the "creation" of the universe, Earth, and everything in it. This is not science when evidence can be provided for the supernatural in creation through the Bible. It is part of Genesis and how God created the natural world. The assumption that there was no supernatural occurrence during the beginning is unscientific. One of the most basic arguments for a creator is the universe began to exist, not an eternal universe, and we have Kalam's Cosmological argument.

Furthermore, we are here -- the universe and everything in it exists! Now, if evolution and its big bang could explain in detail of how the electromagnetic spectrum, the Higgs field, the cosmic microwave background, and how amino acids formed into proteins in outer space from nothing or invisible quantum particles, then they would have a better explanation and argument with big bang. We need to have the theory fit the evidence instead of the evidence made to fit the theory. Science should not just be based on empiricism, but also on a priori reasoning in addition to the scientific a posteriori reasoning. This is all part of epistemology. We need to use facts, reasoning, and historical truths in science since not everything can be proven by scientific method.

I've read Dr. John Morris' explanation for a creator -- Should the Public Schools Teach Creation? -- and today we have a more updated version from Lee Strobel -- Strong case, but flawed by compromise (Review of Lee Strobel, Case for Creator) - creation.com. creation.com gives a brief overview without reading his book. Sorry, I haven't read his book, but have watched the video below.

186,282 mps that is the distance that light travels and we can measure that distance. The Andromeda galaxy is 25,000 light years away from us so when we see it through a telescope what we're seeing is something from 25000 years ago. For all we know it might not even exist anymore. The Bible says that the Earth in the universe is roughly six to seven thousand years old. The Bible is based on faith. the writers of the Bible believe the Earth was flat it was the center of the universe that diseases were caused by evil spirits. the Earth is not flat it is not the center of the universe diseases are caused by germs and viruses. You know I don't know the guy I remember a post on Facebook and he was talking pretty harsh about this form but part of what he said was correct. The Bible is a book that is part historical fact, parable, and a guide on how to have a relationship with God. The Bible is based on faith.

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

the writers of the Bible believe the Earth was flat it was the center of the universe that diseases were caused by evil spirits.

Any Bible reference support this view ?

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

The Bible is based on faith.

Not according to the Bible .

BELIEF and TRUSTING the FATHER is by faith, and without faith it is impossible to please God the Creator.

The Bible is truth, regardless of what someone believes. Even if they have no faith at all.

 

[Sleepy089]

Any Bible reference support this view ?

There is no argument the speed of light is the speed of light it's like 2+2, the answer to that equation will be four no matter what you want it to be. When we see the Andromeda galaxy through a telescope we're seeing the Andromeda Galaxy from 25000 years ago at the speed of light. I can read the Bible and believe in God but I can also believe that people who believe the Earth was flat and that the Earth was the center of the universe might have made some mistakes in their writings I don't think the people who wrote the Bible figured how far mankind would advance. unless you're in the category that actually believes the Earth is flat and if you are there is absolutely no arguing with you so you have a nice night

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

There is no argument the speed of light is the speed of light it's like 2+2, the answer to that equation will be four no matter what you want it to be. When we see the Andromeda galaxy through a telescope we're seeing the Andromeda Galaxy from 25000 years ago at the speed of light. I can read the Bible and believe in God but I can also believe that people who believe the Earth was flat and that the Earth was the center of the universe might have made some mistakes in their writings I don't think the people who wrote the Bible figured how far mankind would advance. unless you're in the category that actually believes the Earth is flat and if you are there is absolutely no arguing with you so you have a nice night

I guess you are sleepy, or mixed me up with someone else.... There is no evidence at all except made up evidence, that the earth is flat. Yes, I know they probably won't change their mind - no worry. Not to argue about vain speculations, right?

Note that GOD always KNEW, everything - including how far (and wicked) the world would 'advance' as you put it. HE inspired/ breathed HIS WORD > Scripture , PERFECTLY.... thankfully for our sakes, to save us, to teach us, and so forth in HIS PURPOSE and HIS PLAN....

 

[jamesbond007]

186,282 mps that is the distance that light travels and we can measure that distance. The Andromeda galaxy is 25,000 light years away from us so when we see it through a telescope what we're seeing is something from 25000 years ago. For all we know it might not even exist anymore. The Bible says that the Earth in the universe is roughly six to seven thousand years old. The Bible is based on faith. the writers of the Bible believe the Earth was flat it was the center of the universe that diseases were caused by evil spirits. the Earth is not flat it is not the center of the universe diseases are caused by germs and viruses. You know I don't know the guy I remember a post on Facebook and he was talking pretty harsh about this form but part of what he said was correct. The Bible is a book that is part historical fact, parable, and a guide on how to have a relationship with God. The Bible is based on faith.

Where do you get your distant starlight calculation? Show us? Do you just ignore gravity and Einstein theory of general relativity?

Not only that you do not quote the Bible correctly. Nobody believes in a flat earth except you. What kind of Christian are you?

 

[coffee4u]

There is no argument the speed of light is the speed of light it's like 2+2, the answer to that equation will be four no matter what you want it to be. When we see the Andromeda galaxy through a telescope we're seeing the Andromeda Galaxy from 25000 years ago at the speed of light. I can read the Bible and believe in God but I can also believe that people who believe the Earth was flat and that the Earth was the center of the universe might have made some mistakes in their writings I don't think the people who wrote the Bible figured how far mankind would advance. unless you're in the category that actually believes the Earth is flat and if you are there is absolutely no arguing with you so you have a nice night

It doesn't matter how fast the speed of light is or how far the stars are measured to be. This had nothing to do with the miracle of creation.
Psalm 33:6
By the word of the LORD the heavens were made, their starry host by the breath of his mouth.

Isaiah 45:12
It is I who made the earth and created mankind on it. My own hands stretched out the heavens; I marshaled their starry hosts.

God created them and stretched them out where he wanted them to be. While psalms is poetry and even Isaish isn't strictly literal since God isn't a large man in the sky but spirit. The verses still pictures God using his 'hands' to literally place the stars where they are, even if that happens to be billions of miles away. My guess is this was no more difficult a task for God than designing the wings of a butterfly.

He also made sure that mankind could see them and use them.
Genesis 1
14 And God said, “Let there be lights in the vault of the sky to separate the day from the night, and let them serve as signs to mark sacred times, and days and years, 15 and let them be lights in the vault of the sky to give light on the earth.” And it was so. 16 God made two great lights—the greater light to govern the day and the lesser light to govern the night. He also made the stars. 17 God set them in the vault of the sky to give light on the earth, 18 to govern the day and the night, and to separate light from darkness. And God saw that it was good. 19 And there was evening, and there was morning—the fourth day.

There are a couple of flat earth people on CF. You will find the vast majority of us do not hold to that at all.

 

[summerville]

Then we should lie to them in schools?

How about this:
Tell the kids that there are two theories on how the world came to be so ask your parents. None of that has anything to do with Reading, Riting or Rithmatic... nor geography that is being taught in grades 1 to 8. Maybe if they stuck to reality of the three R's... our kids would get to high school being able to read, write and do some math and know where their city is on a map of the world.



Hard science is things like why airplanes fly and why your car needs oil, How oxygen gets to your cells and why you don't add ammonia to drain cleaner.. why a prism makes a rainbow and why hammering metal makes it harder..

It's NOT the spontaneous formation of a complex substance like DNA or how an amoeba turned into a peacock over billions of years.



Yes, there is, because some parents still demand sound doctrine and not the tickling of the ears.

I know... We paid for our kids to be taught bible based truth and how God is in everything from Math to biology to music to nature.... to everlasting life.


Just wondering.. What kind of "private religious school" offered a bible course as an elective? No offense just seems odd to me.

The private Christian school that we sent our kids to had the bible woven into every subject.

Episcopalian.. The old private schools don't teach religion. I come from an odd demographic where everyone went to boarding schools. The ONLY private school I know of that teaches religion in Texas is San Marco Academy. Even Marymount and Notre Dame in Rome just had vespers.

The Christian day schools that popped up during the early 1970s were about segregation.

 

[summerville]

Wrong. We find science backs up the Bible even though it's not a science book.

Dr. Louis Pasteur debunked spontaneous generation and abiogenesis. Dr. Jonathan Wells debunked Urey-Miller experiment which was had wrong assumptions about primordial Earth (flimsy) to begin with. Thus, no scientific method has supported evolution.

OTOH, we have had creation scientist Dr. Louis Pasteur showing only life begets life. Gregor Mendel demonstrating his laws of inheritance and laws of segregation. We also had James Watt who invented the steam engine and started the Industrial Revolution.

Even creationist Sir Francis Bacon created the scientific method.

Creation scientists have done more for science in history than today. Otherwise, name a few things that evolution scientists have tested.

Louis Pasteur wasn't a creationist. How can you use the names of all those scientists to claim creation science is science.

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

Louis Pasteur wasn't a creationist. How can you use the names of all those scientists to claim creation science is science.

Also, Pasteur deceptively and greedily started the infamous germ theory , known by the scientist he perjured and proven to be false before Pasteur decided to make great profit from the lies. Corporations (medical and government) went along with germ theory, since the truth, terrain theory, did not insure humongous profits like germ theory does.

 

[summerville]

Also, Pasteur deceptively and greedily started the infamous germ theory , known by the scientist he perjured and proven to be false before Pasteur decided to make great profit from the lies.

Corporations (medical and government) went along with germ theory, since the truth, terrain theory, did not insure humongous profits like germ theory does.

You're joking, right? You do know you can see bacteria and microbes under a microscope.