tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4051826042602269061.post6759912174358032493..comments2024-03-25T09:01:20.997-07:00Comments on Diary of an Autodidact: Why I Do Not Teach My Kids Young Earth CreationismDiary of an Autodidacthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11849157548643091986noreply@blogger.comBlogger14125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4051826042602269061.post-50544339239948170022014-10-04T18:21:00.402-07:002014-10-04T18:21:00.402-07:00Morris is just regurgitating the "Biblical&qu...Morris is just regurgitating the "Biblical" justification for race-based slavery that was used from the very beginning of the African slave trade. <br /><br />I totally agree with you on the problems this raises as to how one determines who should have which role. One interesting book that explores this issue is Pudd'n'head Wilson, by Mark Twain. (I read and reviewed that book a few years ago, so you can find my take elsewhere on this blog.) <br /><br />What was startling to me is how all these fundamentalist groups are all connected through their love for the Confederacy. I wasn't anticipating that the literalist interpretation of the Bible would be so dear to the hearts of neo-Confederates everywhere, but I guess it's either that or signing up with a theory of genetic inferiority ala Hitler...Diary of an Autodidacthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11849157548643091986noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4051826042602269061.post-70916794563528165852014-10-04T14:55:21.438-07:002014-10-04T14:55:21.438-07:00So is someone who's half-black and half-white ...So is someone who's half-black and half-white a Hamite, or a Japhethite? This is important for Morris to figure out because it will determine whether their role in society is to serve, or to be served. But he's assuming nice clear racial boundaries that have maintained themselves for millennia, and without those his whole system falls apart. Or he could just take the Confederate tack, where even the tiniest shred of African DNA makes you eligible to be a slave (even if it was so far back in your family tree that you look white).<br /><br />Also, I get where Shem = Semites comes from (the root word of Semite is Shem, after all), but who ever decided that Japheth = Caucasians and Ham = Africans and everyone else, anyway? Esp. when there were known Hamites living in the Middle East even in Biblical times (i.e., the Canaanites). I don't recall the Bible being published with a map showing where all these nice orderly racial groups ended up, and how they conveniently never intermarried again until the past hundred years or so.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4051826042602269061.post-3678270526070724712014-09-24T22:43:48.396-07:002014-09-24T22:43:48.396-07:00Thanks for responding! We have a Kindergartener an...Thanks for responding! We have a Kindergartener and a First Grader this year. I mostly planned this year out in a similar way pulling from a variety of resources. I just had one of those typical homeschool self doubt moments because I've had so many friends start using and raving about Apologia and how they wish they'd had a curriculum all along so wondered if maybe I was really missing out on something by not having one. :)Lisahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17914975978817623567noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4051826042602269061.post-49328284716023431992014-09-22T00:08:47.600-07:002014-09-22T00:08:47.600-07:00This year, we are giving Houghton Mifflin's &q...This year, we are giving Houghton Mifflin's "Science Fusion" Jr. High level curriculum a try. As always, I am modifying it to fit, since my school aged kids range from 1st to 6th grade. More memorization for the older ones, and more supplements. <br /><br />Honestly, about the only science curricula that I actually liked is the A Beka chemistry and physics high school books, because anything lower than that level has seemed more dumbed down than I would like. <br /><br />We supplement a LOT with other stuff, from the library (and my own extensive library), and I try to teach whenever the opportunity arises. For example, we are campers and hikers, and we have taken the incredible, outstanding Sierra Nevada reference book by John Muir Laws along. Any flora or fauna one can find is in that book, with good illustrations. <br /><br />Thanks for stopping by to comment! Diary of an Autodidacthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11849157548643091986noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4051826042602269061.post-70515799247311153012014-09-18T14:39:58.533-07:002014-09-18T14:39:58.533-07:00I got here because your modesty series showed up i...I got here because your modesty series showed up in my Facebook newsfeed when a mutual friend "liked" it and I've been lurking a bit since because we share some similar viewpoints on a variety of things (I enjoyed your Well Educated Mind post as well). My family and I are semi-recent converts to Eastern Orthodox Christianity and while you will find some within our circles (especially among Protestant converts) that cling to things like YEC and other fear based beliefs, this is mostly not the case. EO allows for the mystery of things and does not try to explain and over-explain everything. <br /><br />I skimmed the comments just now and saw this point you made, "One alternate theory as to the meaning of the fall advanced by some theistic evolutionists is that mankind took a step that they were not ready to handle. Some step perhaps in cognition or sentience that occurred before the species was able to handle the moral consequences of free will." And wanted to say that is very close to one of the aspects of the explanation of the Fall offered by the Eastern Church. <br /><br />Anyway, that is not why I de-lurked and dropped in to comment. I'm curious as to what science curriculum, textbooks, resources, etc. you have liked and would recommend because my husband and I find ourselves in the same boat and probably won't be going with our local homeschool crowd in eating up all that Apologia has to offer. ;) Lisahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17914975978817623567noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4051826042602269061.post-80784067851740677852014-09-09T19:45:22.663-07:002014-09-09T19:45:22.663-07:00Thank you for this. I've struggled with this ...Thank you for this. I've struggled with this is our homeschooling--I'm definitely NOT comfortable using only YEC materials. As always, I find your discussion so well-laid out and thoughtful--I'm sharing this with my husband.Amy @ Hope Is the Wordhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07949836482747469686noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4051826042602269061.post-53985340706622137402014-09-09T16:47:17.273-07:002014-09-09T16:47:17.273-07:00I am posting the following comment from Diann, who...I am posting the following comment from Diann, who experienced technical issues in commenting, and thus e-mailed me. I am always open to thoughtful comments, and this is one: <br />***<br />Sebastian, you wrote: "In order for evolution to be true, death would have to reign on earth for millions and millions of years. If this point is true then it was never Adam that brought death to earth it was God..."<br /><br />I can't tell you how many times I heard this argument. But the Genesis account itself refutes the 'death wasn't around prior to Adam's disobedience' theory. In Genesis 2:17, God says, "But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die."<br /><br />What reference point would Adam have for "die," what meaning would God's urgent warning have for Adam, if Adam didn't know what death was?<br /><br />I was a YECer for many years, but when YECers began to insist that people who didn't believe the earth was 6-10,000 years old weren't "really" Bible believers... Weren't "really" Christians... Weren't "really" saved... I began to doubt YEC and started to read up on it. I was amazed to find that almost every argument YEC brings up has been thoroughly refuted. Although many Christian scientists make it their aim to serve The Lord reverently through their work and are men and women of integrity, I confess, that I was taught that non-YEC scientists deliberately mislead people because said scientists are, for the most part, secular humanists. "Their" science is part of a left-wing humanistic agenda to destroy the knowledge of The Lord Jesus Christ. "Because if you can't believe Genesis, what part of the Bible can you believe?"<br /><br />When I read that Reconstructionist Rousas Rushdoony financed the early YEC movement, I was floored. No wonder YEC has become so entrenched in denominations and fellowships where Calvinism has taken root. No wonder belief in YEC is almost an article of faith. To not believe in hints that one is non-Elect, and therefore damned.<br /><br />But there is an awful lot that Scripture doesn't tell us. Obviously, if Adam and Eve were the first humans (and I believe they were) then they had daughters as well as sons. But their daughters are never mentioned. Maybe they had other sons who were never mentioned, either? And maybe there were people before Adam, too, people who were destroyed long before God formed Adam.<br /><br />All I know is that God told us what is crucial for us to know, and one of the things that He decided not to tell us, is the age of the earth.Diary of an Autodidacthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11849157548643091986noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4051826042602269061.post-42583619818690088512014-09-09T14:25:50.462-07:002014-09-09T14:25:50.462-07:00And Seb, thanks for your contribution too. Stop by...And Seb, thanks for your contribution too. Stop by anytime!Diary of an Autodidacthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11849157548643091986noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4051826042602269061.post-52956089045163590702014-09-09T14:24:25.749-07:002014-09-09T14:24:25.749-07:00Another outstanding Lewis quote. I really need to ...Another outstanding Lewis quote. I really need to re-read that series - and finish it. He's right. How many brave and noble men and women have gladly faced death rather than do evil - even those with no belief in the afterlife? <br /><br />If we believe (as I do) that the ultimate death is separation from the Divine, then the Fall was ultimately about the loss of a spiritual connection, not about the dying of a physical body. Thus, it was the reconciliation of man and God that (consequently) led to the promise of a physical resurrection. <br /><br />As always, I love your participation in these discussions, Mackenzie. Diary of an Autodidacthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11849157548643091986noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4051826042602269061.post-63162295539289983812014-09-09T12:55:57.325-07:002014-09-09T12:55:57.325-07:00I agree. It always annoys me when people make the ...I agree. It always annoys me when people make the issue about whether God "could" do something, whether it's about YEC or alcohol ("Are you saying Jesus COULDN'T make wine that was non-alcoholic but tasted alcoholic???"). This issue is WHY God would do that, when doing so would be creating a misleading reality. <br /><br />And regarding the issue of death, CS Lewis (yes, again) says something in "Out of the Silent Planet" that really struck me: "No, it is not a few deaths roving the world around him that make a [man] miserable. It is a bent [man] that would blacken the world." That is, that death in and of itself - the mere physical occurrence - might not be evil when not accompanied by "bent-ness" or brokenness. Mackenziehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00746528061521806095noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4051826042602269061.post-66736885163610879152014-09-08T11:16:06.484-07:002014-09-08T11:16:06.484-07:00The question has never been whether God *could* cr...The question has never been whether God *could* create an old looking world. The question is *why* would He? Why create a world that is intentionally misleading? <br /><br />It's not just one thing either. If it was *just* starlight, then maybe. But why old rocks? (If you haven't read through a good explanation of radiometric dating, you should.) And why group the fossils together in ways that strongly suggest progressive dates? It would have been quite easy to leave evidence of a young planet, had that been the case, but the evidence is of an old planet. So why make it look that way?<br /><br />As to the issue of death, yes, an old earth does blow apart the idea that all death is due to the human fall. It would require a differing view perhaps of what it means to be "made in God's image," in a different way than plants and animals. Perhaps an immortal soul is one of the ways. <br /><br />I think that this is indeed one of the reasons that fundamentalists cannot even consider giving up the idea of a young earth - because it does threaten our understanding of the nature of the fall and of redemption. I do not pretend to understand it all myself, and doubt that any of us will really understand fully in this life. <br /><br />Another resource you might read a bit about this side of things is Peter Enns. Many like him have found ways to reconcile the old earth evidence with the Christian faith. <br /><br />Diary of an Autodidacthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11849157548643091986noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4051826042602269061.post-64953442550685101182014-09-05T14:36:40.521-07:002014-09-05T14:36:40.521-07:00St Nick might have a few qualms with you not belie...St Nick might have a few qualms with you not believing in him. I mean if you don't believe in him do you really believe in the deity of Christ? Cause I am pretty sure he got into a fist fight over it at the Council of Nicaea ;) <br /><br />My view of Genesis is that if God wanted to create a new world looking old I am sure he could do it. If he is a trickster then anybody that every primes a fuel pump before starting a car is guilty of the same trickery; or every Gardener to be a liar if he plants a blooming flower. I have no trouble understanding science and even a very literal view of creation. If God can speak to the waves and calm them and breath life into dead beings, why is it hard to believe that he can speak light into existence to warm the creatures He was creating. I am sure that as any good creator who is excited about his creation would not want to wait the millions of light years in order just to put life on earth. But I don't really know I only have 80 to 100 years on this earth. I would never damn any one for believing in an old world creation. I disagree with it on the one basic point. In order for evolution to be true, death would have to reign on earth for millions and millions of years. If this point is true then it was never Adam that brought death to earth it was God, and if that is true then there is no reason at all for Christ to die for us. It also means we were never eternal beings, and that our salvation is futile. This for me is more dangerous to believe, it would mean that I believe in nothing and am to be most pitied. The Literal requires faith, but the Figurative rips apart the seams. Just my heart on the subject. To sum up why is it hard to believe that God created the world in 6 days but its not hard to believe that He sent his Son and has Created a Heaven for us? Sebastian and the emerald Islehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02255790568413197953noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4051826042602269061.post-53603513033029363762014-09-04T14:16:43.695-07:002014-09-04T14:16:43.695-07:00First of all, I am not committed either way to a l...First of all, I am not committed either way to a literal or figurative Adam and Eve. I am not really sure which way I lean theologically on that point right now, to be honest. I do think that it is foolish to insist that only one of those viewpoints is theologically viable. My reason for exploring that possibility is that I see the potential loss of disobedience to rules as the central fear of Theonomists. <br /><br />As to the rule itself, I lean in the direction that it wasn't just arbitrary, but that there was a deeper meaning behind it. I have read Out of the Silent Planet and Perelandra, but not That Hideous Strength. (I am sort of hoping to find a hardback edition of the trilogy - harder than one might think - rather than just settling for a paperback. Go figure...) <br /><br />I am a huge fan of Lewis, as you know, and I do find his take intriguing. As I recall, he followed up this idea with another startling one - that simple removal of the tempter might have saved everything. I'll admit that rocked my world when I read it in Jr. High years ago. <br /><br />I wouldn't say that I am necessarily opposed to obedience to arbitrary commands, but I do think that the emphasis on that has taken away from our ability to think clearly about the greatest commandments. This is particularly a problem with those who search for increasingly detailed rules in Scripture, but it also applies to how we think ethically. It becomes downright dangerous and even evil when we are arrogantly sure that we have the only correct interpretation of the rule, and inflict it on others in a way that harms them. (Examples that come to mind are Christ healing on the sabbath - a clear sin to the theonomist; and the use of scripture to defend slavery.) When that happens, something has gone awry in our interpretation, and the admonition to obey the arbitrary rule even though [fill in the blank] keeps us from actually facing the issue squarely. <br /><br />Another thought about Perelandra: If I am recalling correctly (it has been a few years), the "Adam and Eve" couple are able to "break" the commandment after they pass the test - in essence, the temptation was to walk on the land before they were ready. One alternate theory as to the meaning of the fall advanced by some theistic evolutionists is that mankind took a step that they were not ready to handle. Some step perhaps in cognition or sentience that occurred before the species was able to handle the moral consequences of free will. It's an interesting theory (although I'm not completely sold on it), but it might be at least partially what Lewis had in mind. <br /><br />I guess in summary, I can see the fall as a violation of a rule, but I believe that it was (in its most true essence) a violation of love at a heart level. Lewis would seem to agree with that. By focusing on the rule rather than the principle of love, fundamentalists have "strained the gnat while swallowing the camel.) Just my two cents. Diary of an Autodidacthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11849157548643091986noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4051826042602269061.post-78783606056241329742014-09-04T13:37:22.187-07:002014-09-04T13:37:22.187-07:00Really interesting, thought-provoking stuff. I agr...Really interesting, thought-provoking stuff. I agree with most of it, and can live with most of the rest of it. However, regarding your disdain of a literal Adam/Eve/"Do not eat of this fruit" arbitrary command, I'm wondering if you've ever read CS Lewis' Space Trilogy - specifically, "Perelandra."<br /><br />There, Lewis (who was REALLY big into God using natural processes to create) has an interesting defense of the arbitrary nature of the rule. <br /><br />"I think He made one law of that kind [the kind we cannot see the good in] in order that there might be obedience. In all these other matters what you call obeying Him is but doing what seems good in your own eyes also. Is love content with that? You do them, indeed, because they are His will, but not only because they are His will. Where can you taste the joy of obeying unless He bids you do something for which His bidding is the only reason? <br /><br />....We cannot walk out of [God's] will: but He has given us a way to walk out of OUR will. And there could be no such way except a command like this."<br /><br />Essentially, Lewis sees the "arbitrariness" of such a command to be the exact manner in which it allows true obedience for the sake of obedience. I think you miss something really important if you just say "It's arbitrary, so it must be valueless."<br /><br />Thoughts?<br />Mackenziehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00746528061521806095noreply@blogger.com