Yes, teach all THREE ideas...if honesty is the policy.

kofh2u writes:

quote:

---

In this light, it seems reasonable to suggest that science instruction best serves the student in the comtradting of Rationalism with itself, on the philosophical level.

---

You're confusing science with the philosophy of science.While I certainly agree that teaching science well requires instruction in the philosophy of science, the typical high school science class isn't really the place for it since there is so little structure to the science curriculum at the high school level. There needs to be some explanation about the scientific method, the need for observational rigor, etc., it is much better appreciated when carried out through lab experiments that show why such methods work.At this level, you can then get on with the fundamentals of the basic fields of chemistry, physics, and biology without having to constantly to reinvent the wheel. Asking, "But why?" is a wonderful thing in science, but there are some things that should be shortcut through in order to get to the point. That is, the fundamentals are tools to help us examine larger things. If we're going to get to the larger things in the brief amount of time we have, we shouldn't get bogged down in proving the tools.We already do this in mathematics. You don't start teaching math by introducing the ZFC axioms of set theory to six-year-olds. You give them visceral comprehensions of number and go from there. It's more important for the typical person to know how numbers function than it is to know where numbers come from.When discussing the orbital levels of atoms, we don't really have the time to go into great detail about why the oxygen atom is at a lower energy state of 1s 7p rather than 2s 6p. Better to talk about what this means with how oxygen behaves and why it is such an effective oxidizing agent.

---

Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!

kofh2u responds to me:

quote:

---

Again, service to the community is a prerequisite to a public education

---

But not when that service is to distort reality. You even say so directly:

quote:

---

never to suggest a bending of truth to meet erroneous assumptions, however.

---

But then you immediate follow it up with:

quote:

---

The material should be presented without indoctrination.

---

But one cannot present creationism without indoctrination. It simply isn't science. To present it as science would be to bend the truth to meet erroneous assumptions.Some answers are simply wrong. It doesn't matter how sincerely a person believes in a wrong answer. It's still wrong. And it is a disservice to all concerned to treat it as right.

quote:

---

Time is hardly the issue in fitting the curriculum to this material and the accompaning assumptions of some church peeple.

---

Even when it's wrong?We don't spend much time in science class discussing the Ptolomaic model of the solar system. Why? Because it's wrong.So why should we break the rules for Genesis? We don't accomodate the precious, delicate feelings of the Flat Earth Society, so why do Christians get a pass?You are arguing that it's OK to teach a lie if we don't spend much time on that lie.

---

Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!

kofh2u writes:

quote:

---

The answer as to "why" a person would teach from scripture in a science classroom is that Georgia and Kansas mandated it, by law.

---

And that makes it right?By the way, Kansas reversed itself. And if we're going to insist that legislative analysis has some effect upon scientific analysis, it has been well established that teaching religion in science class is unconstitutional.

quote:

---

Get my point? If they pass the law, then teach it with out indoctrinatinb that science is rigth, or that some millions of old people say the bible says its wrong.

---

But that would be distorting reality.Are you seriously saying we should teach a lie simply because some people might get their feathers ruffled to hear their pet fantasies contradicted?

---

Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!

kofh2u writes:

quote:

---

Creationist agree with the scientific facts

---

No, they don't.If they did, they wouldn't be creationists.

quote:

---

The point I was making in this "honesty" thing is that the word "day" in Hebrew, does not mean an exact 24 hour day at all.

---

But that isn't true. In all "honesty," the word "yom" in Hebrew really does mean an exact 24-hour day. Oh, you can use "yom" to refer to a longer time period, but you have to phrase it in a certaiin way. We can see this in English and the use of the word "day":In Alexander the Great's day....That doesn't mean a literal 24-hour time period but rather the longer socio-political time period surrounding Alexander the Great.But in Genesis, the phrasing is not of a long time period but rather a literal, 24-hour span:"The evening and the morning of the first day."That means something very specific in Hebrew: A literal, 24-hour day.

quote:

---

As in Science, there is no room for a democratic vote on facts.

---

Indeed. And there is no room for a democratic vote on what the word "yom" means in Genesis.It means a literal, 24-hour day.

quote:

---

Day, it is at least metaphorical, as Peter suggests.

---

Why are you using a Christian speaker to interpret a Jewish passage?Strange how Judaism seems to think that "yom" in Genesis means a 24-hour day. Who the hell is Peter to tell them they are wrong? It's their own text. Don't you think that Jews would be the ultimate arbiter of what a Jewish text meant?

quote:

---

If it is mandated to TEACH the writings side by side with the Science, fine.

---

Even when those writings are wrong?It's better to teach a lie to save the feelings of someone?

quote:

---

I suggest FAIRNESS

---

But fairness requires that we treat wrong answers as wrong.Creationism is simply wrong.Why would you have us treat evolution unfairly by equating it with a clearly incorrect response?

---

Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!

kofh2u writes:

quote:

---

Those assuming that a day = 24 hours, ignored day four, when the 24 hour day was "invented.)

---

Incorrect.If a "day" means "24 hours," then it doesn't matter if the earth exists or not.

---

Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!

kofh2u responds to me:

quote:

---

opinion is way different than tangible proof. Agreed?

---

Agreed.But whose opinion should we listen to? Those who wrote the work or those who came in later, usurped it as their own, and are now pissing all over it?We're dealing with a Jewish text. Shouldn't we let the Jews be the final arbiters of what it means? If they say that "yom" means a literal, 24-hour day, don't they get the last word on the subject? It is, after all, their text.What you're advocating is something along these lines.I say to you: My name is Rrhain.You say to me: Now, when you say "Rrhain," what you really mean is "Jonathan."You can see how that's silly. I am the final arbiter on what my name is. It's mine. If I tell you that my name is Rrhain, then that's what it is. Your "opinion" means nothing.

quote:

---

I am ready to read simile, analogy, metaphor, exaggeration, poetic license, and things, like hyperbpla...

---

But, it seems, you are apparently incapable of reading for direct meaning.Yes, the Bible is filled with metaphor. And I would agree that Genesis is metaphorical. But not every word. The entirety of the text is, but the internal consistencies are plain. That is, the story of Genesis explains the relationship of humans to god and is not meant to be taken as a literal description of how life, the universe, and everything came into existence.However, the internal consistency of the story is that the days were literal, 24-hour days.

quote:

---

So, I will ask you this one question, if the first four yoms or days were not metaphors, then why was the this day necessary:

---

Because you are defining "day" to be something that necessarily requires an earth-sun relationship.If, however, a "day" is simply a specific length of time, the existence or non-existence of the sun is irrelevant.Again, Hebrew uses the word "yom" very much the same way that English uses the word "day." That is, it usually describes a 24-hour period but can describe other, longer periods of time.But only if you phrase it properly. That is, you can't just pop in the definition of "undetermined, long period of time representing a cultural/social/political movement through a society" whenever you want. If I were to say to you, "Let's meet again in two days," it would be inappropriate of you to wait for two generations to pass. That use of "day" meant a literal, 24-hour day and we can tell because of the specific phrasing that was used.Similarly in the Hebrew: The evening and the morning of the nth day is a specific construction that always means a literal day. There is no other Hebraic text that translates that as anything else.So why are you making a special case for this one time?If Jewish people understand that it means a literal day, who are you to tell them that they're wrong? It's their book and their language.

---

Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!

kofh2u responds to me:

quote:

---

That's why there is choc and vanil ice cream.

---

Once the ice cream has been served, it cannot change its flavor.

quote:

---

I'll mark you down as sticking with the traditional interpretation, before the Age of Enlightenment.

---

No, mark me down as sticking with the Jewish interpretation, as it is a Jewish text.Note that even Judaism (in general) doesn't take Genesis literally. They know that it's a metaphor. However, it is the story that is a metaphor, not every single word. The story is internally consistent and "yom" means a literal day.Are you seriously saying that a story cannot be metaphorical unless every single word is to be considered a euphemism for something else?I notice you still haven't answered my question, though:We're dealing with a Jewish text. Shouldn't we let the Jews be the final arbiters of what it means? If they say that "yom" means a literal, 24-hour day, don't they get the last word on the subject?

---

Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!

Is that anti-Semitism I smell?

---

Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!