Evolution in history class?

Discussion about scientific issues as they relate to God and Christianity including archaeology, origins of life, the universe, intelligent design, evolution, etc.
User avatar
Philip
Board Moderator
Posts: 8606
Joined: Mon Dec 28, 2009 7:45 pm
Christian: Yes
Sex: Male
Creation Position: Day-Age
Location: Betwixt the Sea and the Mountains
Has liked: 410 times
Been liked: 647 times

Re: Evolution in history class?

#46

Post by Philip » Thu Aug 21, 2014 10:22 am

There are basically TWO views on TE:
God directly directs evolution.
God has instilled in living cells/organisms the ability to evolve.
The differences is the view on how random the mutation process is in evolution.
These two are typically, the main views on TE in regards to God involvement in evolution and it must be noted that NO TE view supports the deistic viewpoint.
Those and also the belief that God installed souls into the already resulting and evolved beings, Adam and Eve. Which begs the question, IF true, does humanity have two separate lines - those who sprang from Adam and Eve's linage and those that sprang from their evolutionary ancestors? Or was the other line, those only springing from those on the Ark, the only genetics that survived? And, of course, did the two, pre-flood lines intermix? Of course, as I do not believe man evolved from higher animals, I don't believe this. But IF the differences between Genesis 1 and 2 have to do with a pre-Adam race that was created separately and before Adam and Eve, meaning that the Garden of Eden was part of but separate from the rest of the creation (that also came before it), I am at least open to that possibility. But I still don't believe that means the previous race evolved.

Of course, IF it could be proven that evolution occurred, that this was God's mechanism for creation - and that happend to be true, it really doesn't change anything, in the sense that God still had to begin the universe and install life on earth. But as I always say, if Adam and Eve weren't actual people, then much of Scripture has to be doubted - a very slippery, dangerous and, I think, illogical slope.

PaulSacramento
Board Moderator
Posts: 9228
Joined: Fri Mar 25, 2011 12:29 pm
Christian: Yes
Sex: Male
Creation Position: Theistic Evolution
Location: Ontario, Canada
Has liked: 124 times
Been liked: 349 times

Re: Evolution in history class?

#47

Post by PaulSacramento » Thu Aug 21, 2014 11:04 am

Philip wrote:
There are basically TWO views on TE:
God directly directs evolution.
God has instilled in living cells/organisms the ability to evolve.
The differences is the view on how random the mutation process is in evolution.
These two are typically, the main views on TE in regards to God involvement in evolution and it must be noted that NO TE view supports the deistic viewpoint.
Those and also the belief that God installed souls into the already resulting and evolved beings, Adam and Eve. Which begs the question, IF true, does humanity have two separate lines - those who sprang from Adam and Eve's linage and those that sprang from their evolutionary ancestors? Or was the other line, those only springing from those on the Ark, the only genetics that survived? And, of course, did the two, pre-flood lines intermix? Of course, as I do not believe man evolved from higher animals, I don't believe this. But IF the differences between Genesis 1 and 2 have to do with a pre-Adam race that was created separately and before Adam and Eve, meaning that the Garden of Eden was part of but separate from the rest of the creation (that also came before it), I am at least open to that possibility. But I still don't believe that means the previous race evolved.

Of course, IF it could be proven that evolution occurred, that this was God's mechanism for creation - and that happend to be true, it really doesn't change anything, in the sense that God still had to begin the universe and install life on earth. But as I always say, if Adam and Eve weren't actual people, then much of Scripture has to be doubted - a very slippery, dangerous and, I think, illogical slope.
The Adam and Eve story, taken as it is written ( if we didn't have Genesis 1 for example), talks to us about two specific people, in a specific place at a unspecific time in history.
One can argue about the geneologies in the rest of Genesis, but that is a different story, why?
Because the Adam and Eve story does NOT give us a time line in regards to WHEN Adam and Eve were created or HOW LONG they were in Eden OR what was happening outside of Eden.
We can postulate/hypothesis something like this: ( and no this specific view has no direct or explicit biblical backing)
God creates the world.
God creates Eden and a garden within it.
God creates Adam and places him in the garden.
Adam goes about his business as per God's plans for him ( naming animals, tending the garden, etc)
God creates Eve from Adam to be his companion.
Time from for all the above? years? centuries? millennium? the bible is not specific so...
In the mean time, other life continues outside the garden and outside Eden, other humans come to be and populate the Earth.
Eventually Adam and Eve screw the pooch and get kicked out of the Garden and Eden and settle elswhere.
Have kids and the geneology of Israel is started...
Cain kills Abel, flees to an existing city and settles down there and gets hitched, has kids, etc, etc..

See, what we do have in the bible is the history of Israel ( comments about other races and civilizations happen only because of interaction with Israel) and that is why the lineage of Adam is crucial because Israel is the race that God started and took under His "wing".

There is a reason that the Bible doesn't speak of the peoples of Russia or China or the Americas or Indonesia, etc, etc.
The bible stories are about Israel and those that came in contact with Israel and, eventually because of Christ, it becomes about US ALL.

Morny
Valued Member
Posts: 304
Joined: Sun Oct 06, 2013 8:05 pm
Christian: No
Has liked: 0
Been liked: 9 times

Re: Evolution in history class?

#48

Post by Morny » Fri Aug 22, 2014 8:02 am

RickD wrote:That you were talking about those who "...believe both in evolution and divine intervention...". That is what theistic evolutionists believe. They believe in a God, and evolution.
You've already indicated that the term "theistic evolution" covers a "huge spectrum". Why introduce a ill-defined term useless enough to cover both Ken Miller and Ken Ham? The premise of my point only requires a person who believes (scientific) evolution and a divine first-time creation of a non-physical unmeasurable spirit for a special mating pair, Adam and Eve.

If you're saying that such a person would have a hard time rationally hold both beliefs, then I agree with you - that was my point.

User avatar
RickD
Board Moderator
Posts: 21632
Joined: Thu Jan 14, 2010 7:59 am
Christian: Yes
Sex: Male
Creation Position: Day-Age
Location: Kitchen
Has liked: 202 times
Been liked: 1109 times

Re: Evolution in history class?

#49

Post by RickD » Fri Aug 22, 2014 9:48 am

Morny wrote:
RickD wrote:That you were talking about those who "...believe both in evolution and divine intervention...". That is what theistic evolutionists believe. They believe in a God, and evolution.
You've already indicated that the term "theistic evolution" covers a "huge spectrum". Why introduce a ill-defined term useless enough to cover both Ken Miller and Ken Ham? The premise of my point only requires a person who believes (scientific) evolution and a divine first-time creation of a non-physical unmeasurable spirit for a special mating pair, Adam and Eve.

If you're saying that such a person would have a hard time rationally hold both beliefs, then I agree with you - that was my point.
As broad of a range that TE is, Ken Ham isn't a TE. He's a YEC.

And no, I'm not saying a person would have a hard time rationally holding to evolution, and a special creation of Adam and Eve.

I have no problem with many kinds of evolution. I just don't think it's right to make the jump to what is commonly called macro-evolution, from other kinds of evolution.
John 5:24
24 “Truly, truly, I say to you, he who hears My word, and believes Him who sent Me, has eternal life, and does not come into judgment, but has passed out of death into life.

Kenny wrote:
"You don’t need faith, logic, reason, proof, or anything else to be atheist, all you need to do is reject what someone told you."



St. Richard the Sarcastic--The Patron Saint of Irony

User avatar
RickD
Board Moderator
Posts: 21632
Joined: Thu Jan 14, 2010 7:59 am
Christian: Yes
Sex: Male
Creation Position: Day-Age
Location: Kitchen
Has liked: 202 times
Been liked: 1109 times

Re: Evolution in history class?

#50

Post by RickD » Tue Oct 21, 2014 2:58 am

Something new came up in my son's history homework last night. Maybe some of you have heard of this. I certainly haven't. In his history worksheet, B. C. and A. D. have been replaced by BCE and CE. It seems to me that this is an attempt to use a dating system that gets rid of the birth of Christ as the basis for dating. But B. C. And BCE are identical. And A. D. and CE are identical. For example, 500 B. C. is the same as 500 BCE. And A. D. 2014 is the same as 2014 CE.

I asked my son what the basis for the BCE and CE dating is. He didn't know, but it's obvious. It still revolves around Christ's birth. So, the very thing that BCE and CE is trying to avoid, can't be avoided.

Now since this is a history class I'm talking about, and historically B. C. And A. D. Have been used, isn't using BCE and CE trying to change history?

Any thoughts?
John 5:24
24 “Truly, truly, I say to you, he who hears My word, and believes Him who sent Me, has eternal life, and does not come into judgment, but has passed out of death into life.

Kenny wrote:
"You don’t need faith, logic, reason, proof, or anything else to be atheist, all you need to do is reject what someone told you."



St. Richard the Sarcastic--The Patron Saint of Irony

User avatar
B. W.
Ultimate Member
Posts: 8365
Joined: Fri Nov 04, 2005 8:17 am
Christian: Yes
Location: Colorado
Has liked: 102 times
Been liked: 260 times

Re: Evolution in history class?

#51

Post by B. W. » Tue Oct 21, 2014 6:47 am

RickD wrote:Something new came up in my son's history homework last night. Maybe some of you have heard of this. I certainly haven't. In his history worksheet, B. C. and A. D. have been replaced by BCE and CE. It seems to me that this is an attempt to use a dating system that gets rid of the birth of Christ as the basis for dating. But B. C. And BCE are identical. And A. D. and CE are identical. For example, 500 B. C. is the same as 500 BCE. And A. D. 2014 is the same as 2014 CE.

I asked my son what the basis for the BCE and CE dating is. He didn't know, but it's obvious. It still revolves around Christ's birth. So, the very thing that BCE and CE is trying to avoid, can't be avoided.

Now since this is a history class I'm talking about, and historically B. C. And A. D. Have been used, isn't using BCE and CE trying to change history?

Any thoughts?
You could define BCE as Before Christ Event and CE as Christ Event...

Base this line of reason of relativism and dare them to prove I am wrong...

Anyways - just an idea

next - do not vote Democrat

Both Republicans and Democrats lie, however, democrats are pathological about lying
-
-
-
Science is man's invention - creation is God's
(by B. W. Melvin)

Old Polish Proverb:
Not my Circus....not my monkeys

User avatar
Byblos
Old School
Posts: 6028
Joined: Mon Sep 12, 2005 12:21 pm
Christian: Yes
Location: NY
Has liked: 100 times
Been liked: 142 times

Re: Evolution in history class?

#52

Post by Byblos » Tue Oct 21, 2014 6:50 am

RickD wrote:Something new came up in my son's history homework last night. Maybe some of you have heard of this. I certainly haven't. In his history worksheet, B. C. and A. D. have been replaced by BCE and CE. It seems to me that this is an attempt to use a dating system that gets rid of the birth of Christ as the basis for dating. But B. C. And BCE are identical. And A. D. and CE are identical. For example, 500 B. C. is the same as 500 BCE. And A. D. 2014 is the same as 2014 CE.

I asked my son what the basis for the BCE and CE dating is. He didn't know, but it's obvious. It still revolves around Christ's birth. So, the very thing that BCE and CE is trying to avoid, can't be avoided.

Now since this is a history class I'm talking about, and historically B. C. And A. D. Have been used, isn't using BCE and CE trying to change history?

Any thoughts?
Another silly attempt at political correctness to cater to the sensitivities of the non-Christian. C.E. stands for Common Era. While it is the same as the birth of Christ, it makes non-Christians all warm and fuzzy inside if they don't have to refer to Him. :shakehead:

What I would like to know is when their children grow up to become inquisitive little rugrats and start asking questions like: "daddy what makes our era so common"? That's when the rewriting of history will undoubtedly commence.
Let us proclaim the mystery of our faith: Christ has died, Christ is risen, Christ will come again.

Lord I am not worthy that you should enter under my roof, but only say the word and my soul shall be healed.

User avatar
B. W.
Ultimate Member
Posts: 8365
Joined: Fri Nov 04, 2005 8:17 am
Christian: Yes
Location: Colorado
Has liked: 102 times
Been liked: 260 times

Re: Evolution in history class?

#53

Post by B. W. » Tue Oct 21, 2014 6:59 am

Byblos wrote:
RickD wrote:Something new came up in my son's history homework last night. Maybe some of you have heard of this. I certainly haven't. In his history worksheet, B. C. and A. D. have been replaced by BCE and CE. It seems to me that this is an attempt to use a dating system that gets rid of the birth of Christ as the basis for dating. But B. C. And BCE are identical. And A. D. and CE are identical. For example, 500 B. C. is the same as 500 BCE. And A. D. 2014 is the same as 2014 CE.

I asked my son what the basis for the BCE and CE dating is. He didn't know, but it's obvious. It still revolves around Christ's birth. So, the very thing that BCE and CE is trying to avoid, can't be avoided.

Now since this is a history class I'm talking about, and historically B. C. And A. D. Have been used, isn't using BCE and CE trying to change history?

Any thoughts?
Another silly attempt at political correctness to cater to the sensitivities of the non-Christian. C.E. stands for Common Era. While it is the same as the birth of Christ, it makes non-Christians all warm and fuzzy inside if they don't have to refer to Him. :shakehead:

What I would like to know is when their children grow up to become inquisitive little rugrats and start asking questions like: "daddy what makes our era so common"? That's when the rewriting of history will undoubtedly commence.
"...daddy what makes our era so common"?

We hold all things in common so redistribution is the only way to go...

Before all things were held in Common - the greedy capitalist exploited the environment and chickens...

Woman interrupts Restaurant Meal - watch video clip
-
-
-
Science is man's invention - creation is God's
(by B. W. Melvin)

Old Polish Proverb:
Not my Circus....not my monkeys

User avatar
RickD
Board Moderator
Posts: 21632
Joined: Thu Jan 14, 2010 7:59 am
Christian: Yes
Sex: Male
Creation Position: Day-Age
Location: Kitchen
Has liked: 202 times
Been liked: 1109 times

Re: Evolution in history class?

#54

Post by RickD » Tue Oct 21, 2014 7:47 am

So you have heard of this? Seriously, this is the first time I've heard of BCE and CE. It just seems like a lame attempt to write Christ out of history.
John 5:24
24 “Truly, truly, I say to you, he who hears My word, and believes Him who sent Me, has eternal life, and does not come into judgment, but has passed out of death into life.

Kenny wrote:
"You don’t need faith, logic, reason, proof, or anything else to be atheist, all you need to do is reject what someone told you."



St. Richard the Sarcastic--The Patron Saint of Irony

PaulSacramento
Board Moderator
Posts: 9228
Joined: Fri Mar 25, 2011 12:29 pm
Christian: Yes
Sex: Male
Creation Position: Theistic Evolution
Location: Ontario, Canada
Has liked: 124 times
Been liked: 349 times

Re: Evolution in history class?

#55

Post by PaulSacramento » Tue Oct 21, 2014 9:50 am

RickD wrote:Something new came up in my son's history homework last night. Maybe some of you have heard of this. I certainly haven't. In his history worksheet, B. C. and A. D. have been replaced by BCE and CE. It seems to me that this is an attempt to use a dating system that gets rid of the birth of Christ as the basis for dating. But B. C. And BCE are identical. And A. D. and CE are identical. For example, 500 B. C. is the same as 500 BCE. And A. D. 2014 is the same as 2014 CE.

I asked my son what the basis for the BCE and CE dating is. He didn't know, but it's obvious. It still revolves around Christ's birth. So, the very thing that BCE and CE is trying to avoid, can't be avoided.

Now since this is a history class I'm talking about, and historically B. C. And A. D. Have been used, isn't using BCE and CE trying to change history?

Any thoughts?
Ask them what defines the "common era" and see what they say, LOL !

User avatar
Philip
Board Moderator
Posts: 8606
Joined: Mon Dec 28, 2009 7:45 pm
Christian: Yes
Sex: Male
Creation Position: Day-Age
Location: Betwixt the Sea and the Mountains
Has liked: 410 times
Been liked: 647 times

Re: Evolution in history class?

#56

Post by Philip » Tue Oct 21, 2014 10:29 am

So you have heard of this? Seriously, this is the first time I've heard of BCE and CE. It just seems like a lame attempt to write Christ out of history.
I most commonly come across these acronyms in scholarly articles concerning history and archaeology. Yep, it's just unbeliever terminology that acknowledges - though pretending not to - the seismic changes Jesus' arrival, death and resurrection had upon the world. So the time contexts are the same, just the politically correct acronyms are what is different.

User avatar
1over137
Technical Admin
Posts: 5245
Joined: Tue May 10, 2011 6:05 am
Christian: Yes
Sex: Female
Creation Position: Undecided
Location: Slovakia
Has liked: 137 times
Been liked: 297 times

Re: Evolution in history class?

#57

Post by 1over137 » Tue Oct 21, 2014 11:50 am

You now have it like we have in Slovakia. We have n.l. (náš letopočet) and p.n.l (pred našim letopočtom) which can be traslated as our era and before our era.
But examine everything carefully; hold fast to that which is good.
-- 1 Thessalonians 5:21

For I am confident of this very thing, that He who began a good work in you will perfect it until the day of Christ Jesus.
-- Philippians 1:6

#foreverinmyheart

Post Reply