Can Creation according to Genesis be honestly taught as Science

[Chemnitz]

Let me preface this topic with the statement, I believe that a literal 6 day creation is fact.

Can we honestly teach Genesis as Science?
Particularly since science is defined

sci·ence
n 1.
1. The observation, identification, description, experimental investigation, and theoretical explanation of phenomena.
2. Such activities restricted to a class of natural phenomena.
3. Such activities applied to an object of inquiry or study.
2. Methodological activity, discipline, or study: I've got packing a suitcase down to a science.
3. An activity that appears to require study and method: the science of purchasing.
4. Knowledge, especially that gained through experience.
-dictionary.com

The genesis account does not fit the definition of Science. Evolutionary theory does fit the definition of science as it is a theory that appears to fit the existing observational data that have been collected through various means. In this sense Evolutionary theory is good science. As a person and former scientist who believes in the Fall of Creation, I do not believe science can tell us anything about creation. Science can only take us up to the time of the fall. Therefore, Evolutionary theory cannot explain the origin of life. Look at me now I have gone off on a rant.

Back to my point can we honestly teach Genesis as Science? Wouldn't we better off teaching it as history as Genesis is a historical account?

 

[JGrubbs]

I like the Webster's 1828 Dictionary definition better:

SCI'ENCE, n. [L. scientia, from scio, to know.]

1. In a general sense, knowledge, or certain knowledge; the comprehension or understanding of truth or facts by the mind. The science of God must be perfect.

2. In philosophy, a collection of the general principles or leading truths relating to any subject. Pure science, as the mathematics, is built on self-evident truths; but the term science is also applied to other subjects founded on generally acknowledged truths, as metaphysics; or on experiment and observation, as chimistry and natural philosophy; or even to an assemblage of the general principles of an art, as the science of agriculture; the science of navigation. Arts relate to practice, as painting and sculpture.

A principle in science is a rule in art.

3. Art derived from precepts or built on principles.

Science perfects genius.

4. Any art or species of knowledge.

No science doth make known the first principles on which it buildeth.

5. One of the seven liberal branches of knowledge, viz grammar, logic, rhetoric, arithmetic, geometry, astronomy and music.

 

[OldRegular]

Creation cannot be taught as science since there was no human present to observe it. Creation, or existence, then becomes the subject of philosophy or religion.

However it is legitimate to teach that the observations of science are consistent with Divine Creation, regardless of what the atheistic evolutionists say.

 

[Pastor Larry]

Evolutionary theory suffers from essentially the same problem as creation, pointed out in the OP. The facts of science as we now know them, and continually learn about them, can be interpreted to fit the account of Genesis, or the account of evolution. They much easier fit the creation account, which is why we are seeing many people backing away from evolution in favor of agnosticism ... "We just don't know enough."

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. So therefore, it can be taught both as history and as science, though we should be careful not to read more science into than is there. Genesis is not a science text. But whatever it does say about science is true.

 

[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.

 

[Gold Dragon]

Evolution, like much in science involves indirect observation.

Examples
1) No one has ever observed an electron, but indirectly we have seen its effects and can theorize about its properties

2) No one observed the initial sprouting of very old trees, but we can theorize about their age from the effects of time on its internal structures.

 

[billwald]

Doesn't matter how science was defined in 1828.

The theory of evolution must be seperated from any investigation of pre-history and history. History is not science. Prehistoric investigations are not "science." Most 21st century people do not have sufficient learning to differentiate between science and the use of technical toys to investigate historical stuff.

 

[Gold Dragon]

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.

 

[BobRyan]

God divided the night from day - and the land from sea etc.

Can we study the earth and EXPECT to FIND Night and day and land and sea?

Yes!

DOES science ALSO tell us how to MAKE land??

Well not in the lab. No amount of energy may be produced in the lab whose result is " a grain of sand".

Yet science CAN tell us that there IS a transitive relationship BETWEEN and the grain of sand.

So although WE do not have the ability to turn the grain of sand in to pure energy OR to turn pure energy into the grain of sand - we know that in fact the relationship holds.

God as ALL Power (all energy) and by His word he SPEAKS matter into existence. He is the ultimate matter-energy conversion mechanism.

IF WE could ALSO do that same thing -- in the lab - we might have DISPROVEN God for we would show that one DOES NOT have to be the CREATOR to CREATE something from "nothing" !


In Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

Did the Creator merely "observe creation" or did He MAKE it?

Did He merely OBSERVE matter come into existence?

Did he merely OBSERVE Life form?

One thing is for sure - no atheist lab has ever OBSERVED that.

In Christ,

Bob

 

[Gold Dragon]

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.

 

[music4Him]

I guess I would like to ask an evolutionist(sp?) where they think the dirt came from (in which the organisim that became man). Somewhere there is always a creator.... nothing doesn't just happens on its own.

Yes I believe Creation according to Genesis can be honestly taught **but not as science** but as the Truth.

 

[webdog]

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]"Let US make man in OUR image" is third person?

 

[webdog]

Where is the "scientific evidence" and proof of Lazarus being raised from the dead? What about scientific proof in turning water into blood, and later wine? You can't read the Word through scientific glasses.

 

[Gold Dragon]

Originally posted by webdog:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />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]"Let US make man in OUR image" is third person? </font>[/QUOTE]No.

Then God said, "Let us make man in our image,

This is what is found in Genesis 1:26 and refers to God in the third person. An example of a first person account would be.

Then I said, "Let us make man in our image,

 

[Gold Dragon]

Originally posted by music4Him:
I guess I would like to ask an evolutionist(sp?) where they think the dirt came from (in which the organisim that became man).

Dirt isn't an organism, but the dirt in the creation account probably came from the same source as the dirt we get today, a process God created that scientists call decomposition of organic matter combined with inorganic matter like rock, sand and clay.

Originally posted by music4Him:
Somewhere there is always a creator.... nothing doesn't just happens on its own.

I believe there is a creator but things do happen on their own. God is still sovereign over those things.

ie. Would you say a dropped pen falls on its own? I would say yes, but God created the gravitational forces that caused this dropping.

Originally posted by music4Him:
Yes I believe Creation according to Genesis can be honestly taught **but not as science** but as the Truth.

Agreed, Genesis is not science but is most definitely the truth.

 

[webdog]

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Then God said, "Let us make man in our image,
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

This is what is found in Genesis 1:26 and refers to God in the third person. An example of a first person account would be.

How would someone be around then to hear God say that, so that it could be third person? Another proof the ALL scripture is "God breathed". It is indirectly first person, as Moses would have no idea what God said unless:
A. he was there
B. God literally spoke it to Moses

 

[Gold Dragon]

Originally posted by webdog:
How would someone be around then to hear God say that, so that it could be third person?

Exactly, no one was around to witness the events first person or to hear God say that and record it in the third person.

Originally posted by webdog:
Another proof the ALL scripture is "God breathed". It is indirectly first person,

Indirect first person? That is a new one.

Originally posted by webdog:
as Moses would have no idea what God said unless:
A. he was there
B. God literally spoke it to Moses

Obviously not A.

It may have been B. But if it was, God spoke of himself in the third person.

 

[just-want-peace]

Dirt isn't an organism, but the dirt in the creation account probably came from the same source as the dirt we get today, a process God created that scientists call decomposition of organic matter combined with inorganic matter like rock, sand and clay.

You have just given more positive evidence for a YE; organic matter was not created until the 3rd day, so any "dirt" would have to be after then.

Unless you accept that God just created EVERYTHING fully mature and functional "in the beginning"!

 

[Gold Dragon]

Originally posted by just-want-peace:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Dirt isn't an organism, but the dirt in the creation account probably came from the same source as the dirt we get today, a process God created that scientists call decomposition of organic matter combined with inorganic matter like rock, sand and clay.

You have just given more positive evidence for a YE; organic matter was not created until the 3rd day, so any "dirt" would have to be after then.

Unless you accept that God just created EVERYTHING fully mature and functional "in the beginning"! </font>[/QUOTE]Although I'm not sure how I did it, I'm glad I could help.