Tyger! Tyger! burning bright

My sons both loved that poem as toddlers. (Read verse to your kids. Doesn't matter whether or not they understand the meaning, just that they like the words and rhythm.)

As for the evolution thing, I once had a Sunday School teacher who said that the Bible describes God's creation, but isn't real specific on the tools He used, and that those tools could include natural selection.>

Seems the only problem is that God is only a watch-maker here -- wind creation up and let it go (?) Sounds like Jefferson's Deism to me (though still pretty nifty for an animated video).>

While poetry can express truths, it isn't science. Someone with lyrical talent could write a poem focusing on some of nature's more unpleasant facts, like cholera, cruel predators and animals who eat their own progeny, making exactly the opposite point.>

Eric--

That's a MUCH more interesting argument to me than most of what I hear on this matter. Cursory thoughts on the matter:

1)1 Corinthians 15 doesn't seem to me to require an originally deathless humanity. In fact, in some sense, it implies the opposite--"But it is not the spiritual that is first, but the physical and then the spiritual. The first man was from the earth, a man of dust, the second man is from heaven...Just as we have borne the image of the man of dust, we will also bear the image of the man of heaven." To me, this suggests that the nature of the first man is perishability.

2)Romans 5 is more along the lines of what you're saying, but I'm not sure that we can't see this in a slightly different way as well. Paul insists that Adam is "a type of the one who was to come," so we should not forget in which direction the dependency runs. And then we get, "But the free gift is not like the trespass. For if the many died through the one man's trespass, much more surely have the grace of God and the free gift in the grace of the one man, Jesus Christ, abounded for the many." And later, the same pattern: "If, because of the one man's trespass, death exercised dominion through that one, much more surely will those who receive the abundance of grace and the free gift of righteousness exercise dominion in life through the one man, Jesus Christ."

So there are two issues I see here--first, Paul says Adam is a type of Christ and then gives us the "If...much more surely..." formulation more than once. The symmetry is then not perfect--the salvation of Christ is more sure than the transgression of Adam. Second, the issue seems very much to center around this notion of dominion--"death excercised dominion from Adam to Moses," and so on. Dominion here meaning power--death, in its full force as understood by Paul, is our sin exercising dominion over us. This concept of death is not necessarily identical with a merely biological understanding of death (like that which animals and plants must experience as well). One can take it for granted that, however human beings came to be, there was a first man in a theological sense--that is, that being whose self-awareness allowed him to for the first time set himself in the place of his creator, and for the first time to consider his own death. And, clearly, we are all descendants of such a being. But I think the issue here in Paul is that the righteousness of Christ overcomes the dominion of sin such that the dominion of sin (in all its forms) is utterly reversed. The original state isn't merely restored--instead, Christ's dominion is so complete that even the signs of physical death and corruption are eliminated and in Christ's resurrection a promise is enacted which was never made to the first man (who, I might remind, is made from dust in the first place--he was always perishable, as Paul suggests in 1 Corinthians 15). I think this is more consistent with the trajectory of the passage into chapter 6 as well--the old body, the perishable body, must die (in Genesis, Adam and Eve are not given new bodies when they are expelled from the garden) and be replaced.


So I disagree with you, but I'm glad we can discuss this at the level of soteriology.>

Creative thinking one oh one (pun intended).>

Let's be honest. "Intelligent design" is simply Creationism poorly hidden under a pseudo-scientific blanket.

There is no science in Intelligent Design. As far as my reading had taken me, I cannot find a single peer-reviewed article scientifically supporting the notion (not a theory) of Intelligent Design.

If you want to believe that evolution is bunk, that the earth is 6,000 years old, or any other notion about how life developed on earth... hey, it's a free country. Just keep it out of the schools. We have enough trouble producing Americans with even modest proficency in science. Let's not further muddy this serious problem by injecting it with a bunch of claptrap.>

Didn't one of "the doctors from Oxford" already devote an entire book to debunking this argument?>

Adam and Eve did not start out as a metafour. They became one only after the births of Abel and Cain.

:)>

Derek, the fact that creationists pay taxes to public schools is not an argument in favor of teaching creationism (whether Young Earth flavor or ID flavor) in schools. Many school districts nowadays have Indian immigrants who believe the story of Ganesh. Should we teach that in science class? Should a school district with a significant number of Scientologists on the tax rolls stop teaching psychology?

It's better for everyone if science classes teach science.>

Mark, LOL! I always saw Yahweh as a cosmic voyeur, but out of respect to this combox I won't suggest we go there. :)>

Derek, the fact that creationists pay taxes to public schools is not an argument in favor of teaching creationism (whether Young Earth flavor or ID flavor) in schools.

Public schools mean they're under the control of the public.

Many school districts nowadays have Indian immigrants who believe the story of Ganesh. Should we teach that in science class?

If they want it taught, they have a moral right to voice their opinion. That's the way it goes.>

So long as anyone tries to use the political process to dictate curricula (of any sort), I will continue to reject their attempts as wrong, and take them to court to prevent their efforts or reverse their actions.

Don't make me laugh. The decision to even have a curriculum is political. The judges are either appointed by elected politicians or are elected themselves (making them politicians). All you're saying here is damn what the people want when they have the temerity to disagree with me. Although, I'm sure, you'd be the first person to squawk about respecting democratic processes when it gives you the result you want.>

Stefanie,

I understand the discoveries that have happened since Darwin published Origin. The deviations you're talking about are really rather minor compared to the principal idea he came up with: natural selection being the mechanism by which life changes. Although a lot of science has passed by since the 1800s, he is still consulted as source, which is rather remarkable.

At any rate, even if you are right, that's really not a response to my argument. Issues, like the ones you cited depend on interpretations, and you have to decide which interpretation you're going to go with.

To me, a science class in public school has an obligation to present the current science of the day as accurately as possible, in a way commensurate with the students' age and understanding.

Well, that's demands decisions which will be made, ultimately, at a political level.

As far as not injecting religious opinions, I've no objection to it myself. But you can't deny the right of others to lobby for their position on one hand, and then boast of being a free-spirited democracy on the other, especially not when you rely solely on the courts to do your battles.

Look at the results of this. Sure, ID and other theories are forbidden in the classroom, and have been for decades, but a large proportion of Americans still doubt evolution. Many simply do not understand it. Perhaps those concerned about evolution and other science matters would be better off focusing on teaching and explaining the science itself, and convincing people, instead of depending on the nearest judge to hand it down by judicial fiat.>

Derek, of course everyone has a moral right to voice their opinions. Even morons and bigots have this right. But not everyone has the right to have their opinions taken seriously, particularly by scientists. If a community of creationists insists that their public school teach creationism, that is their decision. And when their kids grow up completely ignorant of how the natural world actually works, when they are denied admission to any colleges except Bible colleges, when they can't get jobs except within the creationist ghetto, they will have no one to blame but themselves.

Is this really what you are arguing for? It is, I repeat, within your right to believe this and advocate for it. But it is not good.>

Derek,

Why not also to teach astrology in schools? Alchemy? Why not push for teaching every pseudo-scientific notion that has plagued our species througout history? If I can get enough people to believe the sun revolves around the Earth, why not teach that alternative theory? Shouldn't the children hear both sides of the orbital revolution debate?>