Can Creation according to Genesis be honestly taught as Science

[Pastor Larry]

Originally posted by Gold Dragon:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Pastor Larry:
The main difference is that Genesis is the account of an observer ... God himself. He certainly saw what went on, and has recorded that for us.

I disagree with this. The Genesis account does not speak of God in the first person but in the third person.

Yes, God observed creation and saw what went on. But no, Genesis is not a first person account of what God observed. </font>[/QUOTE]But all Scripture is God-breathed, and therefore is the account of God.

 

[Gold Dragon]

Originally posted by Pastor Larry:
But all Scripture is God-breathed, and therefore is the account of God.

I also think it is pretty amazing that God included humans in creating his account as well and didn't simply drop it from the sky.

 

[Pastor Larry]

It would indeed be really amazing, but that's not what he did. Moses was writing what God revealed to him. There is no evidence of any third person information being passed along.

 

[Gold Dragon]

Originally posted by Pastor Larry:
Moses was writing

That is God including humans in creating his account.

 

[D28guy]

"Can we honestly teach Genesis as Science?"

We certainly can. There are many organisations filled with highly education men and women...educated in science, anthropology, hydrology, etc etc...who hold to the literal interpretations of Genesis.

6 days meant 6 days as we know them, things basically sprang into existence as the scriptures say they did, a literal world wide flood, approximetly 6-1000 years of existance of earth and mankind, etc

Its completly reasonable and works just fine from a scientific point of view.

God bless,

Mike

 

[BobRyan]

Originally posted by Gold Dragon:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by BobRyan:
Did the Creator merely "observe creation" or did He MAKE it?

He made creation and observed it was good.

However Genesis is not a first person record of that observation but a third person one. </font>[/QUOTE]The apostle Peter has debunked that view.

 

[El_Guero]

third person

Of the Trinity?

In the beginning was the Word ...

That should be enough SAID ...

 

[El_Guero]

Originally posted by TexasSky:
Pastor Larry took the words out of my mouth when he stated "Evolutionary theory suffers from essentially the same problem as creation."

No one can observe the evolution of man from a previous life state, a single cell, an explosion, or any of the other theories that are put forth as explanation for the creation of the Universe.

Ergo - Creation itself is no less scientific than evolution is.

That said, I think it sometimes behooves us to remember that we don't need to make God's miracles fit modern science. They are called miracles, by Christians, because they are of God. They are called "unexplained" by non-Christians because they are too blind to see the hand of God, but even they can admit that it doesn't fit science.

Pastor Larry took the words out of my mouth, also!

 

[Gold Dragon]

Originally posted by BobRyan:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Gold Dragon:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by BobRyan:
Did the Creator merely "observe creation" or did He MAKE it?

He made creation and observed it was good.

However Genesis is not a first person record of that observation but a third person one. </font>[/QUOTE]The apostle Peter has debunked that view. </font>[/QUOTE]Peter said that Genesis was written in the first person? I'm pretty sure his hebrew wasn't that bad.

 

[Gold Dragon]

For those of you who say you read the bible using the historical-grammatical hermeneutic, it should be pretty clear that the literary structure of Genesis 1 and the entire book is written as a third person narrative and not a first person one, as much as we would like it to be a first person one to make it sound more like scientific writing.

Some examples of first person narratives in the Bible are Isaiah and Ezekiel where the narrator describes their visions using the words I and me. In Genesis, first person pronouns are found in the words of the characters being narrated about but not in the narration itself.

This doesn't mean that Genesis is less trustworthy than a first person account. It just means that it isn't one. Most of the bible is written in the third person. And the God-inspired bible is completely authoritative and trustworthy as God's scriptures to mankind.

[ September 27, 2005, 11:09 PM: Message edited by: Gold Dragon ]

 

[Chemnitz]

Whether or not Genesis can be taught as science has nothing to do with the personal beliefs of scientists.

True science is based on observational and empirical evidence gathered in experiments. Genesis does not offer this kind of evidence, it merely records what happened and in what progression. This is why I say Genesis should be taught as history and not science.

 

[El_Guero]

Whether or not ... [EVOLUTION] can be taught as science has nothing to do with the personal beliefs of scientists.

True science is based on observational and empirical evidence gathered in experiments. [EVOLUTION] ... does not offer this kind of evidence, it merely records what happened and in what progression. This is why I say [EVOLUTION]... should be taught as history and not science.

While this statement sounds 'good', I doubt that very many 'evolutionists' will like it.

So why should a 'scientific' believer in Genesis be expected to through out Genesis as 'Scientific'?

 

[El_Guero]

True science is based on [Scientific Method and it is EXPECTED that the method (hypothesis or theory) will be supported by] observational and empirical evidence gathered in experiments.

 

[El_Guero]

According to the definitions in the OP (II.2, II.3) The study of Genesis is a Science.

 

[Chemnitz]

The Genesis account hardly qualifies as scientific method. It contains no reproducable data or experimental processes. By the definition of scientific method which requires a reproducable experiment with verifiable results, Genesis lacks all of this.

 

[just-want-peace]

The Genesis account hardly qualifies as scientific method. It contains no reproducable data or experimental processes. By the definition of scientific method which requires a reproducable experiment with verifiable results, Genesis lacks all of this.

Thank you! You have just effectively stated that "EVOLUTION" is no less a theory than "creation" as far as actual proof is concerned.

Once again, it boils down to who you choose to trust; God or man!

 

[Gold Dragon]

Originally posted by just-want-peace:
Once again, it boils down to who you choose to trust; God or man!

Agreed, I definitely trust God and his account in Genesis, and not man's interpretation of that account found in YEC.

 

[El_Guero]

Chem

But, by your definition, Genesis is Science.

Neither Genesis, nor evolution, can be studied using scientific method.

But, we are being asked to teach evolution as fact and Genesis as historical 'myth'. If the culture around us would be fair, then BOTH would be taught as historical 'myths'.

 

[El_Guero]

Ergo,

Genesis can be taught as honestly as evolution in a scince class ...

 

[El_Guero]

JWP,

Someday ... sooner than most expect ... we will all study Genesis in a reproducible manner ...

... when we are all reproduced as new creatures some to GLORY and others to eternal DAMNATION ...

The irony to me, is that Scripture never focuses upon that in Heaven, but it does seem to focus upon the 'LAMB THAT WAS SLAIN' ... I thank God that His death is not reproducible ...