DescentBB

Young Earth Creationist Attack on the New Texas Earth and Space Science Course

A Scientific Response
by Steven Schafersman, Ph.D.
Professional Geoscientist and Former University Geology Professor
Member, Texas Earth and Space Science Standards Panel
President, Texas Citizens for Science
2009 January 15

Update, 2009 January 19:
The Earth and Space Science Committee has written a Majority Report that has
been sent to the State Board of Education and Texas Education Agency

The new Earth and Space Science (ESS) course standards (and all other science course standards) will be up for approval before the State Board of Education (SBOE) during January 21-23. Some SBOE members--the seven who are Young Earth Creationists (YECs)--will attempt to make changes to the ESS standards in ways that will damage the scientific integrity and accuracy of the course. In particular, these SBOE members will try to negatively modify or delete the standards that require students to understand the following topics that deal with scientific topics they consider controversial: age of the Earth and universe, radiometric dating, evolution of fossil life, and the origin of life by abiotic chemical processes. These topics are the ones that YECs consider to be controversial; indeed, they are obsessed with them to the exclusion of everything else.

Texas citizens should write letters to the individual SBOE members and ask them to adopt the new ESS standards without change. That's the simple message of your letter: to accept the proposed ESS standards without editing or modification, because I strongly suspect an effort will be made to do exactly that by members of the SBOE. A group of ten individual Earth scientists worked together for a year during several intense meetings to create these standards. These individuals worked to make the new ESS standards the finest possible. They sometimes had disagreements that were resolved by patient discussion and often compromise. Their very careful effort and hard work should not be derailed by the actions of nonscientists who have ideological and political agendas. Under the Texas Constitution, the SBOE members are politically-elected officials who actually have the power to write whatever science standards they wish, and several have expressed their intention to modify certain standards to align with their religious and ideological agendas. These standards would include the ones identified above.

In addition to writing letters to each of the 15 SBOE members asking that the ESS standards--indeed, all the science standards--not be modified in unscientific ways against the intentions of the scientists and science teachers who wrote them, I also request that you write to your colleagues and ask them to do the same. We need a tremendous outpouring of support from Earth scientists in both academia and industry to counter the probable equal outpouring of support from critics of science among the citizens of Texas.

http://www.texscience.org/reports/ess-r ... 9jan15.htm

Conform!

Science + religion = inquisition

Did you know that both \"Secular Humanism\" and \"Atheism\" have been recognized by the Supreme Court as religions?

Sergeant Thorne wrote:Did you know that both "Secular Humanism" and "Atheism" have been recognized by the Supreme Court as religions?

I always knew I was religious...

Bee

Honestly, I feel a bit of empathy for those young-Earth folks. Twelve or thirteen years ago I would have sided with them, based on the materials I was reading.

Now, I just wish they could understand what I do: that the young-Earth view is not only perpetuating some really poor pseudo-scientific work, it's fundamentally flawed Biblical interpretation.

I really struggled with this through college as I studied Biblical interpretation and Physics. The young-Earth material is surprisingly effective at drilling the idea that anything contrary to their interpretation is anti-Christian.

Anyway, while I hope those young-Earth SBoE members find the truth, I don't envy them the journey.

Having a Geosciences degree, I find this couching of religious dogma as a provable science in effort to force this stuff into school science textbooks an appalling new trend. If they want to believe in the Biblical view of the Earth's beginning, they can go to church to learn it and are free to believe it as 'fact', but don't call it science or put it into science texts for everyone else. What? Are we regressing in time now to the point where anybody who dissented with church dogma was called a heretic, summarily tortured for their 'crimes' and put to death? How quickly people forget history.

Wow Texas school systems suck... I'm glad I live in Florida, with a good education sys-...

Nevermind!

Hmmm. Maybe that's why they have their own electrical grid control, to send out brainwashing waves to the state populace.

Tunnelcat wrote:Maybe that's why they have their own electrical grid control, to send out brainwashing waves to the state populace

Well, I'm sure that is the PRIMARY reason, but a neat and beneficial side effect is the way our lights stay on when everyone else's go off.

And here I thought it was to power Old Sparky.

Dedman wrote:And here I thought it was to power Old Sparky.

Unfortunately, YEC seems to have done far more damage to the Christian cause than the whole slew of new atheists and their mouth-foaming internet followers. It's not so much that I think the philosophy itself is harmful; it's that it is made a decisive issue rather than a peripheral one (such as the nature of free will, eschatology, etc.) and you're treated like some sort of heretic if you accept another interpretation.

Even though many evangelical scholars embrace other interpretations, you'll never hear about it in otherwise commendable churches.

Sanity remains...for now.

http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/ap/tx/6225827.html

That's unconstitutional.

Science is the new Religion.
Technology is the new God.
And Wikipedia is the new Bible.

And, thou shall not point out any weakness lest thee be cast into the fires of the new Hell.

Heh.

Foil wrote:...the young-Earth view is not only perpetuating some really poor pseudo-scientific work, it's fundamentally flawed Biblical interpretation...The young-Earth material is surprisingly effective at drilling the idea that anything contrary to their interpretation is anti-Christian.

So, where's a good place to get info on why the YEC position is flawed?

Just know that the Bible cannot be taken literally where it disagrees with Humanist scientific interpretation. [/sarcasm] Luckily there are all sorts of fun things that can be done with it so that we don't have to take it as written, or Christianity could never enjoy an enviable association with the scientific community. [/more sarcasm]

Evolution is the how and when, Creation is the why and who, they are not incompatible Even Einstein believed that.

Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind.

Albert Einstein (1879 - 1955), \"Science, Philosophy and Religion: a Symposium\", 1941

Einstein wasn't god, he was just a smart guy. Too often I see people flout some of his rants like biblical truth.

Darwinian Evolution and Biblical Creation are incompatible. The only way they're not is if you \"interpret\" the Biblical account of creation in a non-literal sense (or generalize Darwinian Evolution), which is simply wishful dishonesty.

It sounds great to say that Evolution is the how and when, while Creation is the why and who, and it has the effect of appearing to solve a dilemma, but... does reality still matter, at all? The two do actually overlap, in reality, and they are incompatible. Details matter. The Bible shows the universe being created in 6 literal days, while Evolution says that it occurred over the course of billions of years... just a slight incongruity there...

Evolution, from the very first, was never a means to discover the how and when for a who and why. It is, unless adapted for convenience, a rejection of who and why.

maybe I should clarify. growing up there was only creation and evolution. not new Earth old Earth. Darwinian evolution is a fantasy

The Bible shows the universe being created in 6 literal days

who's 6 days Man's or God's???

a day is but a thousand years and a thousand year a day

So, where's a good place to get info on why the YEC position is flawed?

The Grand Canyon

Bible shows the universe being created in 6 literal days

Thats not true. The Bible does say 6 days but never actually defines what a day is. To go further, later on it says that a day with the Lord is like a 1000 years and a 1000 years is like a day. So while you MAY be right you also may not be because you can never be exactly sure how long a day with the Lord is. It's not a detail I'd base all my beliefs on.

Sry Cuda, missed your post.

no problem Flip,

and here's a couple more examples

(Psalms 105:8 )

He has remembered His covenant forever, The word which He commanded to a thousand generations,

remembered and commanded both post tense

(Psalms 90:4)

\"For a thousand years in Thy sight are like yesterday when it passes by, or as a watch in the night.\" .

(1 Chronicles 16:15)

Remember His covenant forever, The word which He commanded to a thousand generations,

again commanded post tense

(Deuteronomy 7:9)

Know therefore that the LORD your God is God; he is the faithful God, keeping his covenant of love to a thousand generations of those who love him and keep his commands.

it is painfully obvious to anyone that 1 day in God eye's is not the same as one day in Man's eye's

The Bible itself states that the covenant and laws of God have been proclaimed to a \"thousand generations\" Even if a generation is considered to be 20 years, this adds up to at least 20,000 years. A biblical generation is often described as being 40 years, which would represent at least 40,000 years. However, since the first dozen or more generations were nearly 1,000 years, this would make humans nearly 50,000 years old, which agrees very well with dates from paleontology and molecular biology.

not to mention that the events of the sixth day of creation require time beyond 24 hours. On this day, God created the mammals and mankind. He also planted a garden, watered it, let it grow, and put man in it, with instruction on its care and maintenance. Then God brought all the animals to Adam to be named. This job, in itself would take many days or weeks. Next, God put Adam to sleep and created Eve. It is very unlikely all of this could take place in 24 hours, since much of it was dependent upon Adam, who did not have the abilities of God.


and as for the who and the why

The heavens are telling of the glory of God; and their expanse is declaring the work of His hands.

(Psalms 19:1)

flip wrote:

So, where's a good place to get info on why the YEC position is flawed?

The Grand Canyon

eerk, wrong.

There's a working model and theory that shows the grand canyon could have been formed by a singular catastrophic event.

like maybe a FLOOD?!?!?!

Heh I just told him it's a good place to start . While it is entirely possible there's no way to know for sure. Start with it and then investigate as many geological extremes such as the Grand Canyon as possible. To me that's the only way to draw a logical conclusion. It must be based on many observances and not just the one. I myself think that time and erosion makes the most sense.

I see your point Cuda, but I interpret most of those to mean that time is of no consequence to God and that his covenant is unchanging, not as a way to determine a time frame which with the information given is impossible.

ya but to clarify on my point. \"IF\" some of us are going to take a legalistic standpoint on time in Genesis then we must apply that same standard for all \"time\" in the Bible

That’s funny, when he mentioned the grand canyon, I had images of someone using carbon dating on all those exposed layers of eons lost.

you know carbon dating is about as accurate as throwing darts from 50 yards, right?

CUDA wrote:ya but to clarify on my point. "IF" some of us are going to take a legalistic standpoint on time in Genesis then we must apply that same standard for all "time" in the Bible

How about this standard: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gsnRcd8rtXU

CUDA wrote:The Bible itself states that the covenant and laws of God have been proclaimed to a "thousand generations" Even if a generation is considered to be 20 years, this adds up to at least 20,000 years. A biblical generation is often described as being 40 years, which would represent at least 40,000 years. However, since the first dozen or more generations were nearly 1,000 years, this would make humans nearly 50,000 years old, which agrees very well with dates from paleontology and molecular biology.

I've never heard this before. Where did you get it? I looked it up. Your partial quote (and perhaps the translation) is very misleading. The entire argument is utterly without basis...

Deut 7 wrote:9 Know therefore that the Lord thy God, he is God, the faithful God, which keepeth covenant and mercy with them that love him and keep his commandments to a thousand generations.

Which means that he keepeth covenant and mercy to a thousand generations.

Duper, I wasn’t trying to make a case for the accuracy of carbon dating, or which side it makes the case for…It was just the first image that came into my mind, rather than the time it took to carve the canyon.

There are also other ways to date the planet, such as determing the amount of time it takes to form a particular layer of sediment…etc. And that kind of thing was what came to mind… (as opposed to the river taking eons to carve it)

...........

You know, this argument could go on forever, it all depends on what you choose to believe. And this is what I choose to believe…

1. The earth is billions of years old.
2. If the all powerful king in the clouds god created the earth, why did it take so long? Should have been able to do it in the blink of an eye.

Which means that he keepeth covenant and mercy to a thousand generations.

This cannot be true either, for elsewhere it claims that his mercy endureth forever. A thousand generations is a measure of time, so either the Bible is a lie, or your misunderstanding something.

I'm not gonna try and dispute the video. I haven't got the will to go and check all of this guys facts. One thing I am sure of though. When the bible specifically says how God sees a day, it basically says it could be any amount of time.

How does the Bible say that knowledge is built? Word upon word and line upon line. If you get one of those lines built upon an error, the whole thing will eventually crumble. Did he build it in 6 literal days or was it 6 thousand days or 6 million days? You can never definitively answer that question in a way it can't be gainsayed or resisted. So I find it irrelevant and more than that, dangerous to just accept one as a fact that can't be made sure of. Here's a question I have of myself.

If we take everything literal from Genesis. God created Adam and Eve. They had 2 sons. Cain and Able. Cain kills Able and is punished by being sent into the land of Nod( which simply means wandering) and takes a wife?? Where did she come from? I have believed in God and have good personal evidence in my life since I was 6 years old. I've read the book many times through and feel I could argue the text with the best of theologians, but this inconsistency bothers me. One thing though. Youtube and wikipedia don't cut it with me. If the answer is not somewhere else in the Bible then I'll do exactly with it that I do with the day dilemma. Keep what I understand for sure and file this under maybe I'll figure this out one day.

Genesis 2:4 refers to all 6 days of creation as one day,

\"This is the account of the heavens and the earth when they were created, in the day that the Lord God made earth and heaven.\"

so now what was it 6 days or 1 day??

2 Peter 3:8

But do not forget this one thing, dear friends: With the Lord a day is like a thousand years, and a thousand years are like a day.

First Moses now Peter Hrm

by thorne

The Bible itself states that the covenant and laws of God have been proclaimed to a \"thousand generations\" Even if a generation is considered to be 20 years, this adds up to at least 20,000 years. A biblical generation is often described as being 40 years, which would represent at least 40,000 years. However, since the first dozen or more generations were nearly 1,000 years, this would make humans nearly 50,000 years old, which agrees very well with dates from paleontology and molecular biology.

I've never heard this before. Where did you get it? I looked it up. Your partial quote (and perhaps the translation) is very misleading. The entire argument is utterly without basis...

without Basis??? why because you didnt understand it. you give NO refuting arguments you cannot just dismiss it because it doesnt match what you believe.

and I also see that you conveniently ignored the second part of my argument why??

also what day in creation did God create the earth?


edit: I'll be at work 7-6 and probably will not have time to respond but I'm not ignoring you

Flip wrote:

Sergeant Thorne wrote:Which means that he keepeth covenant and mercy to a thousand generations.

This cannot be true either, for elsewhere it claims that his mercy endureth forever. A thousand generations is a measure of time, so either the Bible is a lie, or your misunderstanding something.

I think that for someone that likes to stick to what they know they know you are going out of your way to create a difficulty. All I'm saying is that this is what the language used there means. It's absolutely indisputable, in my mind, from a grammatical point of view. To me the form is very clear (I think I'm pretty good with reading comprehension). A perceived difficulty with "a thousand generations" vs "forever" cannot change what it plainly says. Excuse me, but I would say the misunderstanding is yours in this case, because I don't claim to totally understand it (perhaps my use of the word "means" was misleading), only to know what it says.

Flip wrote:I'm not gonna try and dispute the video. I haven't got the will to go and check all of this guys facts.

Truth be told I haven't checked some of the facts either. I'm taking his word for things like the form of the word "day" in instances throughout the Old Testament, and the meaning of that Hebrew word for "Replenish" (helps that my dad is knowledgeable in both Greek and Hebrew, because I've heard from him that people mislead in this regard all the time), but these are things that could be checked in an afternoon, if one were so inclined. I don't think the integrity of the facts are really what's keeping you from going any further. I think it's a degree of disbelief or incredulity. All I can say is that if you're honest with yourself, this is going to bother you until you get a definite answer, so don't put it off too long. I'm regret that you're not willing to deal with it now, because it puts us at an impasse.

As far as YouTube and Wikipedia not "cutting" it for you. I chuckle at that statement, and particularly at the implication that YouTube is on the same level as Wikipedia. That link is a segmented recording of a lecture that Ken Ham travels and gives regarding the authority of scripture, and which is available in DVD form from Answers In Genesis. If I had the tools handy I would have given you a clip from the DVD itself. He is the only person I've seen so far who intelligently investigates the issue that so maybe people understand only enough to misuse it, as an excuse or a block: the application of the word "day" in the Bible.

Flip wrote:You can never definitively answer that question in a way it can't be gainsayed or resisted.

I strive for truth, not absolute defensibility. There are many reasons why people can, will, and do invent arguments against things that are true. I'm not going to waste my energy trying to pin anyone to a position they refuse to acknowledge for reasons other than the truth. You can definitively answer the question, but you can't make people accept it.

No Thorne now you misunderstand me. When the Bible says the earth was created in 6 days, and elsewhere says a day is like a 1000 years and so forth, to me that gives reasonable doubt. So I say I'm not sure.

You say it DEFINITELY means 6 literal days and that's what I take issue with. What of my other question? I know that one's a little bit harder than discussing how long a day is but I've noticed that people only want to argue from things that make their position stronger and from the very same book, overlook and keep quiet about things that might weaken it. Yet, If their were other people other than Adam and his immediate family?, then maybe we could at least pin down what replenish means anyways That is because we're left with 2 things. There were people on earth besides Adam and his immediate family or the text is inconsistent. Any challengers?

Spidey wrote:Duper, I wasn’t trying to make a case for the accuracy of carbon dating, or which side it makes the case for…It was just the first image that came into my mind, rather than the time it took to carve the canyon.

ahhh

my bad. thx, sry .