Evolution or Creation

The Old Testament was sealed by the Council of Jamnia in the first century A.D. and has survived relatively intact. What we know as the New Testament has never actually been formally canonized by any council or Pope though and this accounts for some groups including the Apocryphal writings and some who don't--the books we have are those generally accepted as authentic and the book became 'sealed' through tradition and custom. Most of what we lost was during the second and third century persecutions. It is believed that Emperor Diocletian, early fourth century A.D., was the one especially responsible for confiscating and burning hundreds of Christian manuscripts and we probably lost a lot of stuff that would have made it into the New Testament. I have found no instances where the Popes themselves presumed to tinker with the scriptures however. It simply would not have been tolerated by the other bishops.

However since we're in a science forum, I will say the high ranking clergy tinkered a LOT with the science of the Middle Ages to the point of excommunicating some of the scientific pioneers. It was during this period that fundamentalism and literalism was invented and science and enlightenment suffered a great deal.

Actually, the texts were rewritten any time they were copied - because that was always done by humans and by hand (= reading problems, translation problems, writing problems, "orders from above", pleasing the superiors .... - who knows now?).

There is no doubt there have been numerous errors in both translations and in editing. Modern scholars have identified numerous areas of what are called 'scribal glosses' in which a scribe probably made a note of clarification or a comment in the margin and in some future recopy, that 'gloss' was inadvertently incorporated into the recopy. I am convinced however, that the main body, intent, and substance of the manuscripts in both the Old and New Testaments have been passed down through the centuries relatively intact.

The problem has never been the content as much as the interpretation. If you take the intent as literal in the first chapter of Genesis, there is an immediate conflict with both common sense and science. If you take it as the theological statement that all that was, is, and will be was by the command of God, there is no conflict for then, even science, becomes God's science.

The teacher should be able to teach that there are many theories about how it all came to be, and this is the way most scientists believe it happened. And if you believe in God, maybe God did it in the way the scientists believe it happened. If you don't believe in God, it happened nevertheless. Either way you're going to have to know the science.

So literalists are happy with their King James bible, even if it's not accurate? Or is it that they don't know any better, or if you tried to tell them, they wouldn't believe you?

Thats about it I think. As I said, in order to take the first (or second) chapter of Genesis literally, one has to switch off any concept of reason and logic. It is no problem for us believers to believe God is the author of science. It is a huge problem for the huge majority of us to believe that the opening chapters of Genesis, in any translation, are intended to be scientific.

When Christians want to accept something from the Bible because it suits their purposes...it is treated as (you will excuse the expression) gospel.

If a particular passage is something they'd rather not deal with...they trot out the nonsense about not taking the Bible literally.

It is all nonsense.

To any objective reader of the Bible...it is obviously a mythology...the creation of a god by relatively unknowledgeable, relatively unsophisticated, superstitious ancient Hebrews.

Do we really need a special class called "you can believe whatever you want" before we send the kids off to learn math and science? Must a teacher preface every lesson with "ok kids, you don't have to believe it, but here's Newton's first law", or "I know you weren't alive to see this kids, but there really was a Roman Empire".

I can imagine a generation of indecisive kids growing up to be Dr's, "Well Mrs. Perkins, you don't have to believe this, but we're pretty sure you have acute apendecitis and need to have surgery right away to survive, but we could be totally wrong".

And maybe it's only nonsense for those who are unable to see or understand, Frank. For those of us who have devoted a good deal of time digging out the truths of the Bible, we acknowledge there is mythology in the Bible along with poetry, allegory, symbolism, metaphor, parable, but we also know there is also honest to goodness history and descriptions of an ancient culture and people that actually existed. Those who have not experienced God usually wish for him not to exist and try very hard to make it so by proclaiming it nonsense. But you cannot convince those who have experienced God, nor can you prove, scientifcally or any other way, that they did not have the experience they claim.

So, the reasonable approach is to allow Christians and others of faith their beliefs but teach them science, and for people of faith to acknowledge that the teaching of science in no way challenges their beliefs.

(edited to correct syntax)

Ros writes:


I don't think the teacher needs to bring up any issue of faith at any time in a science class, though I think teachers of integrity at some point might teach the history of the evolution of scientific thought and Creationism could be a component of that. I only wish for teachers not to presume to destroy the faith of children in the process of teaching science when the child poses the questions.

It should not be necessary to attack or demean another's beliefs in order to state one's own.

Actually, I'm rather glad that for most (European) Christians the Old Testament is just the Old Testament and Christianity began with Jesus Christ - and thus with the New Testament.

Well that's true for many American Christians too, Walter. But the first century Christians were well schooled in the Old Testament law, tradition, and culture and you really can't separate the two. A comprehensive understanding of the New Testament is impossible without some grounding in the Old Testament. The second and third century theologians wrestled whether the Christ of the New Testament was available to/appeared to figures in the Old Testament. There never was universal agreement about that though.

Certainly those with Jewish background and/or who lived around Jewish communities.

I've great doubts about the others :wink:

I don't Walter. From the writings of those who visited the 'Gentile' churches of the Roman Empire, they all apparently had access to and were using Old Testament manuscripts. Now some, most particularly some of the North African congregations, dismissed the Old Testament as irrelevent for Christians, but they knew it.

Well, I have kind to agree, especially, since the first 'New Testament' wasn't collected before Marcion did so about 150 AD - which surely is 2nd century :wink:

True that is. No "New Testament" as we know it existed in the first few centuries of the Church.

Haha. On another forum, somebody said God is just something man has created. That God is just an idea that man made up. And of course, now, we barely know the difference.

I don't think Creationism should be taught in science because it isn't scientific. It can be taught, but not as a course in the science department. Why are people so worried about not having religion in schools? It's in college. And I don't hear people complaining because they can't learn Latin until college.

That's all good and well if it is in the same way as teaching astronomy by saying that for many thousands of years it was believed that the Earth was the centre of the Universe. Then you go on to say that this is NOT the case and support it with examples of real discoveries and research.

What creationists are attempting to do is to impose a single, inflexible view of the natural world. It starts and ends with the will of an invisible all-powerful being that some-how 'knows' what the most perfect world will be. That is akin to re-positioning the Earth in the centre of the Universe again and insisting that events such as meteorites and novas CAN'T happen because the Universe is perfect and thus unable to change in any way whatsoever.

By saying that the biblical version of Genesis is the only, literal truth and whacking great stickers on textbooks saying that the evidence of observation and hard research is 'controversial' isn't just regressive. It goes far beyond a discussion on values and is calculated to undermine the trust we have in people who DON'T draw their authority and reputations from that source.

As previously posted, Mr. S., the vast majority of 'creationists' pushing for inclusion of creationism in the schools are not wishing to replace science, but only want the alternate possibility offered. I disagree with creationism being taught as a subject, however, as I think that is inappropriate and a violation of the constitution.

I have no problem with a teacher telling the class that many people believe a god or gods created the earth, and here is what science teaches. I strongly urge the public schools to not dismiss a child's faith but simply explain that this class is devoted to science only.

In other words a measure of sensitivity is appropriate and productive while maintaining the integrity of honest science.

I'm also just as sure that a teacher wouldn't belittle a child's questions about natural history/evolution or ask them to leave the room unless that child was deliberately offensive or disruptive. Fine, but the class-room isn't the real battleground.

With the stroke of a pen a school board can have references to evolution removed from the curriculum. It can also remove or replace textbooks that support evolutionary theory, it can remove or replace teachers who may support evolutionary theory.

This is not the stuff of fantasy either, in this year school boards in California, Georgia, Kansas, Montana, Texas, Missouri and Ohio have either considered, or been pressured into considering, the dropping of terminology (like the word 'evolution'), restructuring curriculum or not purchasing texts with evolutionary theory.