God's word has all the answers in there. You don't need to hear from me....it's him. He's God, not me. His word is objective while the world's way is subjective.

Yes, I agree. If we believe that God inspired the content of Genesis, (and I believe that He did), then it could be said that the objective part of Genesis chapter 1 is the underlying message, which is clear: God existed before the universe; and God created the universe.

The world’s way is subjective in the sense that we could choose not to adhere to the message at all.

we're not to interpret it....just read it.

but we can’t escape interpreting it. It’s part and parcel of coming to a conclusion about it. While you’ve come to the conclusion that Genesis 1 is a literal, scientific account, I’ve come to the conclusion that it’s a piece of poetry that holds deep meaning. Both conclusions are based on subjective interpretation. I can demonstrate this principle with something you wrote:

Jesus became a maggot to show us the way out

Am I to interpret this statement literally, or is it a metaphorical statement? In order to come to a conclusion, I would have to weigh it up and see what makes better sense. Let’s follow the steps of the Creationist.

I could look up the word “maggot” in a dictionary, (just as the Creationist would look up the Hebrew for “day” and conclude that it means a literal 24-hour solar-day - even though, incidentally, the sun wasn't created until the fourth day according to a literal interpretation, which in itself is somewhat suspect). Just as the original Hebrew for “day” does not mean a billion years, so does the word “maggot” not mean “man”, or “person”.

So am I to interpret your statement literally? I could do so, but I think I would be off the ball. There are other factors that must be considered, based on logic and reason. (Okay, so this is an extreme example, and I’m having some fun with your maggot statement. But I think you can get my gist.) Even though at the end of my investigation I would conclude that “Jesus became a maggot to show us the way out”, is a metaphorical statement, I would understand the statement’s deeper meaning, which is what really counts.

Similarly, regarding Genesis 1, I think that there are many factors we should consider, based on logic and reason, apart from looking up the original Hebrew for "day", before making our conclusions. I believe that it’s unwise to put blinkers up to what our scientists are telling us, and I also think we should consider the apparent allegorical prose inherent in Genesis 1, not to mention the logical contradictions found in a literal interpretation.

we're all looking at the world from the subjective realm of our own consciousness

That's just it Andy...I'm trying to tell you. I'm not looking at it from my viewpoint

It’s easy to get a blind spot to the fact that whatever we look at, and whatever we read, we’re necessarily looking at it from our own subjective point of view - whether we’re conscious of it or not. We are also interpreting things subjectively all the time. It’s impossible for us to “get out of the way”, because it is we who are reading the text. Once we have read the text, we have to exercise our free will in order to make a conclusion. When I said that it doesn’t matter how we interpret it, I was talking about whether we interpret it metaphorically or literally. How we interpret the underlying message is a different kettle of fish, I’m sure.

It was only the perceived need to harmonise with the alleged age of the earth which led people to think anything different—it was nothing to do with the text itself.

this is direct contradiction to what you urge Andy to get out of the way and let primitive perspectives be the reality when it is clearly poetry.

I agree. I think that the Creationists’ interpretation strives to harmonise Genesis 1 with a scientific model of the world that humanity has now outgrown. It's exactly the same principle, which is very interesting.

anyway KFC, I hope these posts don't come across as bullying your point of view. The strength of your faith and your sincere beliefs tug at my heart-strings, to be honest. It must be something to do with the fact that you possess what really counts - true faith and a knowledge of Christ. Jesus said that a "child-like faith" is all we need to comprehend the Truth, and I have great admiration for warm-hearted fundamentalists like yourself. We so-called liberals might all be proved wrong one day, so stick to your guns as much as your heart, and Jesus, tells you.

I could look up the word “maggot” in a dictionary, (just as the Creationist would look up the Hebrew for “day” and conclude that it means a literal 24-hour solar-day - even though, incidentally, the sun wasn't created until the fourth day according to a literal interpretation, which in itself is somewhat suspect). Just as the original Hebrew for “day” does not mean a billion years, so does the word “maggot” not mean “man”, or “person”.

So am I to interpret your statement literally? I could do so, but I think I would be off the ball. There are other factors that must be considered, based on logic and reason. (Okay, so this is an extreme example, and I’m having some fun with your maggot statement. But I think you can get my gist.) Even though at the end of my investigation I would conclude that “Jesus became a maggot to show us the way out”, is a metaphorical statement, I would understand the statement’s deeper meaning, which is what really counts.

The answer is YES!! You can take it literally and I'm going to prove it to you. Going back to scripture to get my answer. It's all in there. >BR>

Job: 25:1-6 says: How can man be justified with God? Or how can he be clean that is born of a woman? Behold even to the moon and it shines not, yes the stars are not pure in his sight. How much less man that is a worm? And the Son of Man (Jesus) which is a worm?

This section is Bildad running out of arguments so he does not attempt to prove Job wrong but simply declares that Job is presumptious in thinking he can argue with God.

Hebrews 10:5 says: When he cometh into the world he said, "Sacrifice and offering you would not, but a body has thou prepared me."

The God of the universe put aside his deity and attributes to come into the world as a man, to be one of us. To suffer and go thru all that man goes thru and much more. He needed the body of a man to offer himself as a final sacrifce. All for what? Because he loves us and wants to show us the way out.The problem is many are content just the way they are and have no intention of leaving the bottom of the barrel. You can wash a pig from the outside but as soon as he's free he's back in the mudhole. The cleaning has to come from the inside first. Only then will we not be content to stay in the mud (or the bottom of the barrel.) So indeed he did become a worm (or maggot) just like man is. He said "Follow ME."

Kinda puts it all in perspective doesn't it?

anyway KFC, I hope these posts don't come across as bullying your point of view

Not at all....I'm quite used to it!!! If any reject me or what I'm giving out...it's not me that they are rejecting....so I don't get huffy. Let's just say I was warned 2000 years ago

From dirt we come, and to dirt we go. If literal creationists want to believe he literally sculpted us, or if others want to see the "dirt" as the primordial ooze from which we were eventually produced, to each his own.

I would go out on a limb and say such shouldn't be in school, on either side, except maybe in philosophy class. If we spent less time on pseudo-political/social theories that may or may not pan out, and more time on how to balance your FRIGGIN CHECKBOOK... well, the world would be a better place...

Call me overly conservative, but the first twelve years of school should be devoted to the concrete; the observable, repeatable, the useful. Thereafter if people want to pursue scientific discovery, great.

The fact that we are turning out kids who know Darwin's theory by rote, and yet don't pick up on it when science fiction treads all over physics tells us volumes about where we are lacking. You can sit in biology class, understand inheritance and mutation and the similarities between species, and yet never really need to waste a minute of class time mulling over philosophy.

I'd much rather see audiences so grounded in science FACT that the Speilbergs of the world can't get by without hiring a science consultant...

From dirt we come, and to dirt we go

Exactly..... from the viewpoint of the physical. But what of the spiritual? Does it die also?

I'd much rather see audiences so grounded in science FACT that the Speilbergs of the world can't get by without hiring a science consultant...

Yes, I love this!! Great idea.

"Exactly..... from the viewpoint of the physical. But what of the spiritual? Does it die also?"

That would be a question for philosophers and churches to decide. It has no place whatsoever in school, and frankly is bad science argued either way. I had a couple of biology professors who loved to take tidbits of biology and tag "And there's why bible-thumpers don't like to come to my class".

I think a teacher who makes such points, on EITHER side doesn't deserve their jobs and should be fired without hesitation. The time they spend promoting their own BELIEFS is time they are neglecting their jobs.

http://citizenleauki.joeuser.com/index.asp?aid=8279

There is no "Intelligent Design". It just doesn't make sense.

There is creationism as a non-scientific alternative to the scientific theory of evolution.

But ID is nothing. Anybody can claim that facts that science can explain are the results of some magical being's acts. It doesn't explain anything. It doesn't help.

At least the Bible has a story to offer. But ID has nothing, no explanation, no help, no guide, nothing.

You have to be a lot more ignorant than a creationist to be a supporter of "intelligent design".

Leauki: No, your offhand dismissal of ID is ignorant. Your definition of "intelligent" is the skewed one favored by Creationists. I would suggest you look deeper and realize there can be "design" without a diety, and "intelligent" doesn't require an specific entity, whether it be God or aliens. You've been programmed by the propaganda of both sides that would prefer ID to be tied to religion.

I think a teacher who makes such points, on EITHER side doesn't deserve their jobs and should be fired without hesitation. The time they spend promoting their own BELIEFS is time they are neglecting their jobs.

I agree here. I say either teach both sides or no sides. Equal time or no time. The problem is the Evolutionists have had 100% of only one side for years. Yet they have not been that successful for the amount of attention they have garnered. They have all the tools, texts and teachers yet still most people believe that there is a creator out there in some form or fashion.

But I agree with Leauki as well. I think the ID theory is to try to marry the evolutionists with the creationists by saying there is much more to evolution than meets the eye without saying it's God. Trying to appease both sides.

But it's not working. For the creationist....it's a step in the right direction and for the evolutionists.... it's a step backward.

No, your offhand dismissal of ID is ignorant.

Wrong.

First of all, I didn't dismiss it offhand. You just assume that I did.

It just happens to be true that ID doesn't explain anything. It doesn't help. It's not useful information. There is no reason to teach it to anybody, because no man can use knowledge of ID to do anything that he couldn't do without such knowledge.

In fact, a man without "knowledge" of ID can do more.

I do realise that there can be "design" without a diety. That was part of my point. That's why I find creationism (classical such) more intelligent. At least religion has a purpose.

Tell somebody how evolution works and you help him to understand the world and change it to the better.

Tell somebody that G-d created the universe and you help him take his life seriously and maybe help other fellow children og G-d.

But tell him that animals have been "designed" by some "intelligence" and who have taught him nothing. You can "explain" everything, anything, and nothing by claiming that some unidentified entity or non-entity caused it to happen. But it doesn't help.

There is nothing ignorant about understanding what science is for and how it works.

I have been "programmed" by reality. I know that an explanation that I cannot use to change the world is no good.

I agree here. I say either teach both sides or no sides. Equal time or no time. The problem is the Evolutionists have had 100% of only one side for years. Yet they have not been that successful for the amount of attention they have garnered. They have all the tools, texts and teachers yet still most people believe that there is a creator out there in some form or fashion.

Schools should not teach random nonsense or religion.

There is no "equal time" for science and for nonsense. A school is supposed to educate. Phantasy can be taught by the entertainment industry.

Evolutionists have had 100% of the time for decades because they can explain and teach. Nobody else can when it comes to this subject. The theory of evolution explains why there are different kinds of animals and how they came about. Nothing else explains this, not even creationism ("G-d made it happen" is NOT an explanation).

If anybody would come up with an alternative theory to Darwinian evolution (like Lamarck's heredity) which hasn't been proven wrong (like Lamarck's heredity), I don't see how any scientist or teacher would be opposed to teaching it. Afterall, opposing theories are taught in physics too (but none of them are "matter moves because G-d makes it move" or "fire burns because some intelligent entity makes it burn").

But I agree with Leauki as well. I think the ID theory is to try to marry the evolutionists with the creationists by saying there is much more to evolution than meets the eye without saying it's God. Trying to appease both sides.

ID is NOT a theory. And ID supporters don't even understand evolution. (If they did they would not call ID a "theory".)

But ID is indeed trying to bridge the difference between religion and science and that is why it's so dangerous. We have had these discussions hundreds of years ago. There is no reason to go back after all the benefits we have reaped from scientific research.

At the very least proponents of creationism or ID should read a few books about evolution. I know they usually don't because I have listened to creationists and ID supporters.

I recommend "The Ancestor's Tale", which I read at the moment.

I have read the Bible, why shouldn't creationists read scientific works?

(BTW, I believe in G-d, go to shul every week, pray, and follow what I consider G-d's laws. I am not ignorant about religion. I just happen to know the difference between religion and reality, between faith and fact.)

((And I know the difference between faith and fact on the one side and cheap sensationalism on the other. Creationism and science belong to the first group, ID to the second.))

'First of all, I didn't dismiss it offhand. You just assume that I did.'

Umm, come on. You said:

"At least the Bible has a story to offer. But ID has nothing, no explanation, no help, no guide, nothing. You have to be a lot more ignorant than a creationist to be a supporter of "intelligent design"."

If that isn't an outright dismissal, nothing is. Again, you are broadly dismissing ID when what you are really addressing is a single possibility regarding it. If you get your impressions of ID from Pat Robertson or his opposition, that's all you'd see. There's a world of possibilities you dismiss as "nothing".

"And ID supporters don't even understand evolution. (If they did they would not call ID a "theory".)"

Evidently you aren't aware that there are fields of study devoted to things like self-assembling systems, biological genetic networks, etc., and undertaken by people a LOT more schooled in evolution than me or you. You, again, are painting ID as somethign separate from maintream evolutionary theory, which is only SOME people's take on ID.