We're under attack- it's starting here

People take pictures and then make them look aged. Artists, including Michelangelo, aged his artwork to make it more interesting. Perhaps what you see as evidence in favor of evolution is simply character to make the world more interesting, or perhaps it is a test of faith, or perhaps our interpretation is completely mistaken. I am saying that the error would be ours, not God's.

I have to consider just this: Would God prefer me to have so much faith in Him that it withstands defiance of what the world believes or would He rather that I believe in Him according what fits into what the world believes, because that way the concept of God makes more sense, requiring less faith?

 

I'm not suggesting that anything be done in secret. I'm not suggesting anything is an embarrassment. I am instead heeding the words of the New Testament by not doing things that unnecessarily antagonize. There's nothing cowardly about quiet strength and confidence, doing the Lord's will while striving to live at peace with others. There's an unfortunate trend today, though, to make an issue out of everything - even a certain belligerence - and this does no one any good.

If a parent/teacher chooses to deny evolution and to insist on a young earth, it's their right and privilege today to do so. Scientifically, though, they are wrong (sorry to put it bluntly, but it is the case), and this is where it gets tricky. When we make this a very public issue, which some Christian groups insist on doing, the government will be more tempted to respond. The argument would be that they are correcting error, and scientifically they'd be correct.

The real problem would be that they would not limit themselves to this one issue. Instead, they'd probably enforce a standard curriculum, publish a list of "acceptable" textbooks, require standardized testing, and maybe insist that parents can homeschool only if they have formal teaching qualifications. By making a big and public issue about this one topic invites a backlash that is out of proportion. Why risk this? The New Testament is wise in its teaching: "If it is possible, as far as it depends on you, live at peace with everyone." In other words, don't antagonize because it will come back to bite us.

 

And yet you seem to feel it is quite acceptable to antagonize your fellow Christians over this subject...?

 

God does not deceive. If he deceived by planting evidence of an old earth, for example, he could deceive about salvation. I have complete faith in the person of God and his loving personality as revealed in the person of Christ. My salvation is secure because his words can be accepted with certainty - and no hint of deception. It was the Roman and other pagan 'gods' who acted on a whim to supposedly test the faith of their worshipers. While not in their league, I follow the footsteps of the great scientific Christians of history. They knew, with unshakable faith, that experimental results will be repeatable and won't change on a whim of God. This is because our God can be trusted; he doesn't play games. He's a person, not a concept. He's omnipotent and in control, and he wants us to learn about him and his world. It's beautiful, just as he is beautiful.

Anyway, we're getting rather off topic.

 

God does not deceive, yet people are deceived. Why would God describe the creation of the universe in six days in His Holy Word if he actually took millions of years? Would that not also be deception?

 

SeekingmyLord,

I'm a Christian too, and understand where you are coming from. I just want to gently say that we "see things through a glass darkly" now, as you well know. I am definitely an Old earth creationists and see no problems with it.So many people don't stop and think that God exists outside the constraints of time. Second Peter 3:8 says that "a day is as 1,000 years" to the Lord. Time is literal to us because we live in a fallen world with death and decay as realities. At the point of creation, the world wasn't like that. Whatever amount of time it took for God to create the earth pales to the fact that he did create it.

 

Why does the psalmist write, in two different places, that the foundations of the earth are fixed and cannot be moved? Is it meant to be taken literally? Establishment church leaders in a past era believed so, and they threatened scientists (who, incidentally, were often Christians) with death for suggesting that the earth orbits the sun. We don't want to fall into the same trap a second time. The meaning of verses depends very much on context.

And thank you, Palavra, for your gentle spirit. Maybe it's because I'm a man, but I can be stubborn, arrogant, strong-willed, and must sound very uncaring in some of my posts. To all, I apologize for that: Yes, I am passionate on this subject, but I forget sometimes how I come across.

 

I can't disagree with what you write. When in doubt, of course we should trust with child-like faith. When, however, we learn new knowledge of the world around us, we can embrace it and learn more about our Lord. In several areas, science has done just this: What was previously unknown is now becoming clear - and it's a wonderful privilege to experience such revelation. We can watch documentaries of creatures living in the ocean's depths, for example, that no previous generation ever knew about. We can observe the minutest of creatures that were unknown to everyone living before us. Through genetics, we can see the relationships between species and their origins. The more we learn, the more we can appreciate the splendor and majesty and fantastic imagination and creativity of our God. What a person he must be!

 

I am not against whatever a Christian chooses to believe in regards to how long the Lord took to form the universe. Actually, I am pretty much it-just-really-doesn't-matter-either-way thinker on this matter, although I admit that I choose to believe in the literal interpretation. I have friends in various sects of Christianity as well as other religions, with differing thoughts on this subject. We do not argue, but learn with interest and respect about our beliefs.

However, I am against this: when another Christian complains about and even berates other Christians for their beliefs, in particular, how they should either accept with evolution theory and while homeschooling teach their children evolution against their own convictions or be quiet about their beliefs because they are attracting unnecessary attention and are perhaps an embarrassment to Christianity as a whole. Such opinions can be presented with far more...oh, what is the word to use here...discretion, perhaps.

That being said, I will not be adding anymore to the argument.

 

exactly my point- this thread is turning into something that's been debated to death. Why bother? Opinions won't change and there's no way to convince. All that matters here is standing united against a common threat-

understand we are being tarred in the media. Today in Parliament they're talking about passing this bill- not only would it allow forced home invasions, but it would make private family court data reportable by media (not just of home schoolers, BTW) FORCE a year of state sex ed (check out Germany's incest/pedaphile education if you're fine with that) along with a long list of other rights violations. It's horrible.
The REASON they care is that hs families tend to object loudest to the UN takeover of education. It puts them out of the way. And when the children are on board the next generation is on board.

Here's an article from earlier:
Thanks to a flawed report by a UN "rights of the child" backer, interestingly named Graham Badman, Britain is trying to force homeschooling parents to allow entrance of government agents into their homes -which is against European Human Rights laws - to supposedly oversee the quality of the education of the parent's own children and interview the children without a parent present, though their report uncovered no evidence of abuse or neglect. The general public is so used to the benefit (and now regulation) of government schools that they are cheerfully allowing incredible oversteppings of the basic human rights of their homeschooling neighbors, not realizing what this means for themselves.

This is a stripping of a basic freedom in a bow to UN policy. Understand the goal in this British decision isn't truly "quality of education" because the statistics don't come close to bearing that out. Homeschoolers are generally ahead of their public schooled counterparts. This is license to harass families who tend to oppose supposedly progressive things like, say, the "rights of the child" anti-parental rights UN legislation.

The British public schooling families-and populace in general- if they are wise- will immediately be very vocal in opposition of this forced, illegal entrance of government officials- because the rights and protections they are entitled to as citizens are being trampled on. While it may just be the homeschoolers today, tomorrow it will be another people group the UN doesn't care for. If the general public doesn't IMMEDIATELY stand up and assert the authority of their country's citizen protections it's just a matter of time before they are in a people group targeted for whatever reason, and they will have allowed too much twisted policymaking to flow under the bridge. This is a very ugly precedent to allow to pass- ugly for the future of all Britain, and it isn't about learning or test scores. Nothing will be gained.


This decision isn't about educational quality. You know how this kind of thing starts? It's pride. Here's a little story. There are many many petty dictators in the world, and one of them worked as assistant principal in an elementary school in a little county. When a mother sent a withdrawal letter to this school, stating her intent to home school, the assistant principal- we'll call her Susan- was incensed. Now this mother had been a hassle for the school from the beginning, as she was very involved in her precious coddled son's education, and insisted that testing showed he needed a teaching style the school refused to allow his teacher to provide. The child was a discipline problem in his class, distracting other children with his fidgeting and talking.

The assistant principal met with the mother several times and listened to her concerns, but felt the current curriculum would be fine if only the child would apply himself instead of being excused by his permissive mother. Worse, when the children were making spirit animals based on Native American traditional beliefs this mother pulled her child from the class, which clearly showed she was a conservative religious crazy. Now she was pulling her child from the school without even bothering to come in, and it was an insult- a slap in the face. It said, "You aren't good enough, and I can do better." Maybe some parents were qualified to home school, but this mom clearly wasn't since she didn't know a good education when she got one.

So, the assistant principal shot a letter off, demanding the mother come in to sign withdrawal papers, but really so she could make mom squirm a little and grill her on how she would be teaching. She would just blast whatever curriculum mom was using and shame her into returning. Unfortunately there was no response to this letter, so the assistant principal called a truant officer and went to the home of the child involved. The mother denied them entrance, insisting she had done all she was required by law to do to withdraw the child.

The assistant principal then sent a letter to CPS about the situation, but got a response stating CPS did not investigate homeschooling, as it wasn't abuse and was a parent's right. Susan refused to withdraw the child based on only a letter and then filed a lawsuit for truancy. Before the court date arrived she received a letter from a large homeschool organization, demanding she immediately withdraw the child as required by law and drop the charges against the parents, or she would face a large countersuit.

Susan looked it up, and the parent was right. All that was required in her state was a letter. She hated to think about the mom's smug face gloating over getting out of the court date and was sure she got a copy of the letter from the organization. It made her so mad and there was nothing she could do!

So, finally she wrote a letter to her Senator, decrying the sad lack of oversight homeschool families had, and demanding something be done. She talked with all of her friends, telling them how sad it was that the sweet boy was forced into seclusion with his arrogant, unqualified mother and her crazy ideas. She later wrote an article about it and it was published in an educational journal.

Meanwhile the child was thriving- he made more progress in the first two months he'd been home than he had the whole last year. His mother was able to take him to special reading workshops that met in the mornings, and twice a week he had the pottery classes that were his special joy. He had more time to play with friends, and his test scores at the end of the year were improved by two grade levels in most subjects.

This didn't matter to the Senator who received Susan's letter- in it she heard only about a poor educationally neglected child, dragged away from school by a crazy mother who was sure to ruin him, and the school had no recourse. She began making plans to promote legislation regulating homeschools so this sort of thing couldn't continue.

 

So what's the best way to respond?

- Continue to ensure that homeschooled children have a higher average SAT score than students attending PS

- Continue to ensure that homeschooled children win spelling bees, science olympiads, and the like

- Continue to ensure that homeschooled children receive a well-rounded education so that they thrive in university and their chosen field of endeavor.

It's not to pick a fight we can't win. Some may not want the science of evolution to be true, but the evidence is there to support it. We have to deal with that. The science should be taught, even while addressing the philosophical issues sensitively with our children. By picking a very public fight on this, we're creating a wedge that can be used by the authorities to undermine homeschooling as we know it.

 

All of which makes us adversaries to the norm and bigger targets.

Perhaps this is how we should respond:

First, worry...a lot.
Second, homeschool very quietly, so no one notices.
Third, fear if someone notices we homeschool and what the future holds for our children because they were homeschooled.

OR

Accept and teach that evolution is as a fact and then everything will be all right. :wink:

 

Evolution says nothing about the beginnings of the universe because they have nothing to say about it. They have no idea. Therefore they sweep it under the rug and tell you not to address 'that' part. The fact is you can't have something 'evolve' from nothing. So there had to be something there to go 'bang' to begin with so to speak. So then where did the something come from? Oh, I don't know, just ignore that part and it will go away... :roll:
Evolution has no real science to back it up, that is the bottom line.

 

I'd suggest two things: (i) Read 'The Language of God' by Francis Collins. He's an evangelical Christian and is well-known publicly for his role as head of the human genome project. He's a man I trust (and that's important when studying this topic). (ii) Watch this 2-hour lecture, with followup Q&A session, by Ken Miller - a Roman Catholic who is a leading geneticist, author, and professor at Brown University. Personally, I've learned a lot from both these sources. The evidence is compelling, overwhelming, and beyond any reasonable doubt.

At the personal level, I used to subscribe to 'Intelligent Design'. If I'm honest, it's because I wanted it to be true. As a scientist by training, though, I have to accept that it's been completely disproved as a scientific model. One of the keys about science, for people of all world views, is that it must be approached without initial bias. No matter what we may want to be true, we have to accept, in the end, the evidence before our very eyes. If it makes us uncomfortable, so be it. The Anthropic Principle makes atheists uncomfortable (if they are honest), so it's not just people of faith who feel this way. Fred Hoyle, a few decades ago, invented the 'steady state' theory of the universe because he just couldn't accept that there was a beginning: Science was just as harsh to him, proving his ideas to be just plain wrong.

Hard data has a habit of challenging our faith and interpretation of bible passages, which, in the end, is a valuable thing. We must make sure we're standing on the rock, and not unduly swayed by current interpretations and opinions. History shows we often get things wrong, so we must be open to that.

 

As near as I can tell one cannot be an evangelical Christian without believing the Bible, and that would include the creation account in Genesis. It pretty clearly says God CREATED the Earth, humans, plants and animals in literally 6 days. So I would say that Francis Collins is not an evangelical Christian.
Either the Bible is true or it isn't. But we can't have it both ways. Evolution is not supported by the Bible.

 

I'm personally worried that the way I homeschool my kids is going to be affected because of some not wanting to teach certain things or not wanting to even mention that mainstream science accepts evolution as a valid theory. When outside of the evangelical fold, teaching that evolution is invalid is pretty much seen as the same as teaching your kid that 2+2=5. Of course the general public's going to be outraged (but really they should be outraged at the lack of education kids are getting at PS...).

I worry for the kids once at university. How far behind are they going to be? Is this something that's going to cost them their faith or a trusting relationship with their parents?

 

But don't you see the pressure that puts fellow Christians under? In previous generations, we imprisoned and even killed fellow Christians for insisting that the earth orbits the sun. Honest people, who knew that the data was incontrovertible, stuck by their principles rather than bow to mistaken religious leaders. The establishment's interpretation of certain bible passages was wrong - and new information proved it to be so. Today we know that these Christians who were scientists were right, and we laugh at the thought of the church taking literally the verse that reads "the earth's foundations are fixed and cannot be moved."

Francis Collins has faced similar pressure. So has Darren Falk (a Christian professor and writer from the West Coast). So have other Christians. I am not of their caliber, but I face accusations of this type all the time as well. I'm expected to just shut up, not raise the subject, and otherwise gentle believers just lose it over this matter. Some people will say to my face, or write, that I am not believer, that I must repent of my opinion, and (wait for it!) they will pray for me. Frankly, if their prayer is for me to act against my convictions, to throw aside honesty and integrity, and to effectively lie before God, then I don't want their prayers. Salvation has nothing to do with this matter, nothing!

I understand that people feel strongly on this issue, but we really can't accuse others of not being Christians because they happen to believe the science of evolution. It's coming close to alienating fellow believers, and that's something we should never do. And once again, it points out to me the extraordinary influence and pressure of this new orthodoxy, perpetuated by the Christian media, that insists on making a big public deal of the matter. It's unbiblical and just asking for trouble, because the backlash will very much hurt us.

 

I went to two high schools where Evolution was barely mentioned. And I do mean barely. My mom certainly never brought it up except to dismiss it.

I went to a Christian University for three years that taught the literal Creation account.

I whole-heartedly believe in a young Earth.

HOWEVER.... When I went back to college in my 20s, I went to a community college. My first semester I took Anthropology. Which turned out to be less Anthropology and more Evolution. The professor was absolutely an outspoken athiest.

Was I behind? Was my faith shaken? Did I struggle? Nope. I quiety laughed at the absurdity that became clearer and clearer as he spoke. I felt sorry for his own naivity. And I passed the class with 102% (I had extra credit). In all 6 major exams, I missed one question.. total.

We are not doing a disservice to our children by teaching Truth. Teaching them to be thinking, adaptable beings will allow them to compensate for any such inconsistencies in college.

And when you get right down to it, worry about academics is of far less import than planting truth in their hearts. I'd rather my child flunk out of college than grow with a distorted view of our Creator.

 

Despite the fact that I disagree with Steve on this issue, I agree with him 100% on this point. Evolution is a gray area in Christianity in the sense that the Bible does not speak against it or for it, so we can not guage a person's relationship with God based on it. There are plenty of things the Bible is clear on: sex outside of marraige, homosexuality, lying, jealousy, laziness... but evolutionary beliefs are not among them. So it's entirely between them and God.

Should we encourage healthy debate and discourse? Absolutely. Should we hold fast to what we believe to be true and pass that truth to our children? Absolutely. Should we think less of other believers because of their understanding of Creation? Never. (And that goes both ways, Steve )

As it's already been mentioned, this is a big issue that's really a non-issue. There are no eternal consequences to a personal belief beyond the belief in Jesus as Lord. What I mean is, believing in Evolution is not going to affect one's salvation. Only one's belief in Salvation will affect one's salvation.

I don't know, I'm not a theologian. I'm not a Bible scholar. I can't wax eloquent on hermeneutical discourse. I'm not even sure I spelled hermeneutical correctly. But it seems like a whole lot of believers spend a whole lot of time on a topic that has little impact eternally. Why can't we just agree to disagree and use our combined energy on something more, well, important. Like bringing other's to Christ?

 

I was not accusing him of not being a christian or not being 'saved'. I only meant that I don't think he could be considered evangelical, as I understand that evangelicals believe in a literal interpretation of the Creation as being by God in 6 days. That is all.

The Earth's foundations ARE fixed and cannot be moved. I don't think their literal interpretation is literal at all. I don't know of one person, scientist or otherwise that has ever 'moved' the Earth. We can hardly predict tomorrow's weather, let alone make a claim like that. I interpret 'fixed' as meaning that humans can't change it.

I guess everyone has their own interpretations or opinions on matters regarding religious/science. But to me the two must work together, if anything is proven scientifically and does not follow the Bible, to me it isn't true then.

I think that salvation has EVERYTHING to do with this matter. For years government, politicians and others have tried diligently to remove God from everything. If they can 'prove' evolution as true and push it down kid's throats from one generation to another while loosening personal morals, then guess what? After several generations, God will be 'lost' to our country and the government will be in control of their trained robots. There will be no need for 'God', after all there ISN'T a God anyway, we all evolved. From what of course, they still can't explain... they just make that part up or ignore it.

I know most people would roll their eyes and vow to pray for me lol
but don't be so quick to think how paranoid I am. Remember the holocaust?
Know the truth about China? Korea? They didn't even feed the people a lie first, they simply took over...
And Americans are fools to think it 'can't happen to me'.