How's your child's science curriculum? I bet it's not as "creative" as this one! (Page 4)

KateTri1 - 2013-04-29 11:59 AM

Bible based doesn't mean they should ignore the basic 4th core Science subject matter to give out redonkculous multiple choice exams including spiritual material. What chafes my hide is that some people try to argue that vouchers should be going to these schools.  

Samyg - 2013-04-29 11:01 AM

I agree with the fact that Atheism is a rejection of God (that much is obvious). But evolution? If you take away the believe that the earth is 5,000 years old, then most scientific theories could co-exist with religion.

I have read an article a while back given a possible natural reason for the 10 plagues. You could argue that even if it was nature, the timing of the events give you pause for thought. So God could act through nature, through the laws of physics, through science. Even Einstein said "I believe in Spinoza's God who reveals himself in the orderly harmony of what exists, not in a God who concerns himself with the fates and actions of human beings". 

 

 

KateTri1 - 2013-04-29 12:59 PM

Bible based doesn't mean they should ignore the basic 4th core Science subject matter to give out redonkculous multiple choice exams including spiritual material. What chafes my hide is that some people try to argue that vouchers should be going to these schools.  

turtlegirl - 2013-04-29 1:03 PM

Of course, we also teach that a lot of what is in the Bible are stories, parables, examples, things that didn't really happen (like the flood, Jonah being swallowed by a whale, etc) but are told to teach lessons of God's love for us and His expectations for our behavior.  You aren't supposed to have a literal interpretation of the Bible.

KateTri1 - 2013-04-29 10:59 AM

Bible based doesn't mean they should ignore the basic 4th core Science subject matter to give out redonkculous multiple choice exams including spiritual material. What chafes my hide is that some people try to argue that vouchers should be going to these schools.  

Samyg - 2013-04-29 11:01 AM

Now it all make sense. My 4 year old doesn't like spaghetti...early signs of a prophet?

Samyg - 2013-04-29 11:21 AM

I am Jewish. A while back I was reading a book called "Asimov Guide to the Bible" (you can guess the author), when a friend invited me to a lecture by an orthodox Rabbi entitled "God wrote the Bible (Bible as in Old Testament)". So I wrote a few questions down and went. After the lecture I raise my hand and asked a few questions. Eventually I stopped because I was the only one trying to refute the original hypothesis (and felt like I was raining on the parade), and because I soon realize I was not going to get straight answers.

I asked about carbon dating (answer: well God could have change the carbon composition of elements, so carbon dating is not exact). I asked about fosils (God could have created the earth with the fossils already in there). I asked about stars millions of light years away that we could see, thus making the universe AT LEAST that old (God could have created the universe with the light of those stars already reaching earth). I also asked a couple more questions about specific language issues in the bible and things that just are strange (humans living hundreds of years, etc).

Well that's easy. Any irrefutable scientific proof that goes against the theory that the Bible is mistake free (a tenet of Judaism) or that the earth is 5773 years old, got refuted with "God could have change/created/did it this way on purpose). Impossible to argue against that...

Brock Samson - 2013-04-29 2:23 PM

I've run into this "explanation" of science from Christians.  And again, simply my opinion I believe these examples to be contrary to the very nature of the Christian God.  My argument goes like this, it's my theory and mine alone that I have developed on my own, so it is what it is.  In it's basic form it goes like this.

1) God exists

2) God is truth and Love

3) It is contrary to the nature of God to lie.

4) we understand the nature of God through the specific revelation of God and the general revelation of God.

5) The specific revelation of God is found in the Bible

6) the general revelation of God is found in everything outside of the Bible.

7) the natural world is part of the general revelation of God

8) to believe that the evidence found in the natural world, through scientific discovery, is inaccurate you must also believe that God lies.  That is, you must believe that God placed "false evidence" or "false signs" in nature.  This idea of God being "false" is contrary to the very nature of God.

Christians who hold to such rigid beliefs that are contrary to scientific knowledge, I believe are afraid.  They fear that science may "disprove" the existence of God.  In short they lack faith.  They lack the faith that the Christian God, my God, is large enough, and big enough that He can handle it.  He certainly doesn't need me to stick up for Him.

Those Christians that see scientific ideas and discoveries as contrary to the principles in the Bible as blasphemy usually do so out of a world view that there are only two possibilities (a) the Bible is accurate and therefore the science is wrong, or (b) the science is accurate and therefore the Bible is wrong.  Not willing to entertain the fallibility of the Bible scenario (a) always wins out.  Thus providing ammunition and justification for the rejection of science.

I believe this is a demonstration of the sin of pride.  It is prideful because it assumes that the persons interpretation of the Bible is accurate, thus allowing only two scenarios.  I propose there is a third scenario that many fundamental Christians never examine it is this:  The science is right, the Bible is right, your interpretation of the Bible that calls for the rejection of science is wrong.

With every new scientific discovery I read about, I become more and more convinced of the existence of God.

I figure if Richard Smalley can win the Nobel Prize in Chemistry AND believe in God, I can too.  It's just a matter of how big your God is.  Why put God in a box. 

turtlegirl - 2013-04-29 1:03 PM

Of course, we also teach that a lot of what is in the Bible are stories, parables, examples, things that didn't really happen (like the flood, Jonah being swallowed by a whale, etc) but are told to teach lessons of God's love for us and His expectations for our behavior.  You aren't supposed to have a literal interpretation of the Bible.

KateTri1 - 2013-04-29 11:59 AM

Bible based doesn't mean they should ignore the basic 4th core Science subject matter to give out redonkculous multiple choice exams including spiritual material. What chafes my hide is that some people try to argue that vouchers should be going to these schools.  

Brock Samson - 2013-04-29 1:23 PM

I've run into this "explanation" of science from Christians.  And again, simply my opinion I believe these examples to be contrary to the very nature of the Christian God.  My argument goes like this, it's my theory and mine alone that I have developed on my own, so it is what it is.  In it's basic form it goes like this.

1) God exists

2) God is truth and Love

3) It is contrary to the nature of God to lie.

4) we understand the nature of God through the specific revelation of God and the general revelation of God.

5) The specific revelation of God is found in the Bible

6) the general revelation of God is found in everything outside of the Bible.

7) the natural world is part of the general revelation of God

8) to believe that the evidence found in the natural world, through scientific discovery, is inaccurate you must also believe that God lies.  That is, you must believe that God placed "false evidence" or "false signs" in nature.  This idea of God being "false" is contrary to the very nature of God.

Christians who hold to such rigid beliefs that are contrary to scientific knowledge, I believe are afraid.  They fear that science may "disprove" the existence of God.  In short they lack faith.  They lack the faith that the Christian God, my God, is large enough, and big enough that He can handle it.  He certainly doesn't need me to stick up for Him.

Those Christians that see scientific ideas and discoveries as contrary to the principles in the Bible as blasphemy usually do so out of a world view that there are only two possibilities (a) the Bible is accurate and therefore the science is wrong, or (b) the science is accurate and therefore the Bible is wrong.  Not willing to entertain the fallibility of the Bible scenario (a) always wins out.  Thus providing ammunition and justification for the rejection of science.

I believe this is a demonstration of the sin of pride.  It is prideful because it assumes that the persons interpretation of the Bible is accurate, thus allowing only two scenarios.  I propose there is a third scenario that many fundamental Christians never examine it is this:  The science is right, the Bible is right, your interpretation of the Bible that calls for the rejection of science is wrong.

With every new scientific discovery I read about, I become more and more convinced of the existence of God.

I figure if Richard Smalley can win the Nobel Prize in Chemistry AND believe in God, I can too.  It's just a matter of how big your God is.  Why put God in a box. 

gsmacleod - 2013-04-29 1:28 PM Excellent post - thanks for sharing! Shane

Brock Samson - 2013-04-29 1:23 PM

I've run into this "explanation" of science from Christians.  And again, simply my opinion I believe these examples to be contrary to the very nature of the Christian God.  My argument goes like this, it's my theory and mine alone that I have developed on my own, so it is what it is.  In it's basic form it goes like this.

1) God exists

2) God is truth and Love

3) It is contrary to the nature of God to lie.

4) we understand the nature of God through the specific revelation of God and the general revelation of God.

5) The specific revelation of God is found in the Bible

6) the general revelation of God is found in everything outside of the Bible.

7) the natural world is part of the general revelation of God

8) to believe that the evidence found in the natural world, through scientific discovery, is inaccurate you must also believe that God lies.  That is, you must believe that God placed "false evidence" or "false signs" in nature.  This idea of God being "false" is contrary to the very nature of God.

Christians who hold to such rigid beliefs that are contrary to scientific knowledge, I believe are afraid.  They fear that science may "disprove" the existence of God.  In short they lack faith.  They lack the faith that the Christian God, my God, is large enough, and big enough that He can handle it.  He certainly doesn't need me to stick up for Him.

Those Christians that see scientific ideas and discoveries as contrary to the principles in the Bible as blasphemy usually do so out of a world view that there are only two possibilities (a) the Bible is accurate and therefore the science is wrong, or (b) the science is accurate and therefore the Bible is wrong.  Not willing to entertain the fallibility of the Bible scenario (a) always wins out.  Thus providing ammunition and justification for the rejection of science.

I believe this is a demonstration of the sin of pride.  It is prideful because it assumes that the persons interpretation of the Bible is accurate, thus allowing only two scenarios.  I propose there is a third scenario that many fundamental Christians never examine it is this:  The science is right, the Bible is right, your interpretation of the Bible that calls for the rejection of science is wrong.

With every new scientific discovery I read about, I become more and more convinced of the existence of God.

I figure if Richard Smalley can win the Nobel Prize in Chemistry AND believe in God, I can too.  It's just a matter of how big your God is.  Why put God in a box. 

gsmacleod - 2013-04-29 12:28 PM Excellent post - thanks for sharing! Shane

tuwood - 2013-04-29 12:12 PM

On the first part, I guess my point is purely form the science side of the argument.  I understand what you're saying, but denying the holocaust is somebody doing that based on ignoring photographic, first hand accounts, and a multitude of other things (including science).  Whereas age of the earth science is 100% a scientific exercise because obviously there's no first hand accounts.  It's not a big deal either way, I was just trying to point out the differences.

As for the second part, the most obvious one that comes to mind is the whole global warming/climate change topic.  There was certainly a valid scientific hypothesis about CO2 emissions causing a greenhouse effect and warming the planet, but pretty much all of the computer forecasts were dismally inaccurate.  They fail in almost every respect when compared to what's actually happened to the earths temperature the last decade+, yet science and politicians continue to push it as absolute fact to our children.  Science to the contrary that potentially contradicts global warming is laughed out of the building, even when it's legitimate science and not just whacky guys like me denying things. 

gsmacleod - 2013-04-29 12:52 PM I agree that there are differences but the problem for me lies when all evidence points in one direction and yet people still deny the evidence. Now, if they were in a position of understanding the science and could formulate a coherent argument for disregarding the evidence, then I'd have no problem with that; however, when the arguement comes from a standpoint of ignorance of the science, I am both saddened and concerned by the state of a system that gets us to that point. The problem here, for me, is that climate change (science) has been lumped together with what we need to do in order to address climate change (politics). From what I know the science of climate change is sound and there is very little disagreement that it is happening and will continue to happen, likely at an accelerated rate if we continue on the path that we are on. Now, what climate change will look like is still something that we are working on because we are trying to model an incredibly complex system and we learn more about how to go about this everyday. So when it comes to predictions like sea levels will go up by XX metres in 50 years, then I take these with a bit of a grain of salt as I know that are models still have a long way to go before we can speak with that level of certainty. Now for the what to do; I'm not sure. Clearly, getting off fossil fuels would be great but definitely not something that we can do in the short term and may even been too hard in the moderate term. Efforts to limit our reliance on fossil fuels, through conservation, through effiency, through R&D in alternate energy, I believe are all things we should be doing but the big question is how fast can we do this and not destroy our economy. So it needs to be a balancing act and one that needs to result in both sides giving a little because, IMO, we cannot simply sit back and do nothing but, at the same time, we can't just give up fossil fuels tomorrow and be able to continue with soceity as we know it. However, all of the above is political and not the science part of climate change. Shane

gsmacleod - 2013-04-29 12:52 PM I agree that there are differences but the problem for me lies when all evidence points in one direction and yet people still deny the evidence. Now, if they were in a position of understanding the science and could formulate a coherent argument for disregarding the evidence, then I'd have no problem with that; however, when the arguement comes from a standpoint of ignorance of the science, I am both saddened and concerned by the state of a system that gets us to that point. The problem here, for me, is that climate change (science) has been lumped together with what we need to do in order to address climate change (politics). From what I know the science of climate change is sound and there is very little disagreement that it is happening and will continue to happen, likely at an accelerated rate if we continue on the path that we are on. Now, what climate change will look like is still something that we are working on because we are trying to model an incredibly complex system and we learn more about how to go about this everyday. So when it comes to predictions like sea levels will go up by XX metres in 50 years, then I take these with a bit of a grain of salt as I know that are models still have a long way to go before we can speak with that level of certainty. Now for the what to do; I'm not sure. Clearly, getting off fossil fuels would be great but definitely not something that we can do in the short term and may even been too hard in the moderate term. Efforts to limit our reliance on fossil fuels, through conservation, through effiency, through R&D in alternate energy, I believe are all things we should be doing but the big question is how fast can we do this and not destroy our economy. So it needs to be a balancing act and one that needs to result in both sides giving a little because, IMO, we cannot simply sit back and do nothing but, at the same time, we can't just give up fossil fuels tomorrow and be able to continue with soceity as we know it. However, all of the above is political and not the science part of climate change. Shane

GomesBolt - 2013-04-29 2:28 PM

As a Nova Scotian, I could see where you'd be unhappy because your island would be a very nice coral reef... Florida would be a sand bar... well more than it is now.

TriMyBest - 2013-04-29 10:28 AM

This is the problem.  The people who argue against proven scientific theories because it doesn't align with their faith view the bible as perfect and beyond reproach.  They don't consider it man's possibly flawed interpretations of God's messages or a series of parables.  Anyone viewing these things through that paradigm are unable to consider other possibilities, so those possibilites must be wrong.

 

eabeam - 2013-04-29 2:59 PM

 

Let's not forget that the Old Testament has been translated how many times?

Even if you accept that it should be interpreted literally and that the original authors' writings are infallible (two big if's for some, but not others).

 

However, this view also requires you to fully trust perfection in translations by people with unknown ability in both languages, unknown understanding of the universe at the time, unknown political agendas or pressures. (Remember that is a Priest or noble did not agree with your viewpoint, it could mean death.)

Something as simple as using context to understand the multiple meanings of a word could drastically change the meaning of what we read today.

GomesBolt - 2013-04-29 1:18 PM

You must've missed the really interesting back-and-forth between Brian and Sam about the Hebrew translation of the first passage of Genesis.  There are texts that are recognized as the oldest texts of certain books.  The oldest version of Genesis was written-down in 5th century BC. 

The discussion between Brian and Sam was over the exact hebrew phrases in that first verse. 

So you're right, the translation can have an effect.  But modern scholars can see the first version that was written.  So, not entirely open to fluid interpretation because there are people who can read ancient hebrew and latin and greek.

Christians usually accept that Young's Literal Translation written in the late 1800s was the closest verbatim translation of each of the oldest texts into English.  It makes it really tough to read, but it is a direct translation. 

There are also concordances (Strong's, Cruden's) that attempt to translate each word in the bible from their original meaning independently.  So when you read a passage, you can pull each substantive word and see what the earliest language and word was and then see what the definition was of each word in that language.

Goosedog - 2013-04-29 3:43 PM

I thought this going to be about foam ball solar system mobiles.  Guess I should have started with the first post.