Three Views on Creation and Evolution

I finally finished reading Three Views on Creation and Evolution. I bought the Kindle version over a year ago, on recommendation from a fellow church member and scientist, to help me understand the three main views of Christians: young earth creationism, old earth creationism, and theistic evolution. There are other names for those 3 views, but those are probably the most common ones. There are also wide variations within those 3 views too, as everyone seems to have a slightly different take on things. The book has 3 main articles, one for each of the views, written by someone who believes in each view. The articles mostly explain each viewpoint, and give various thoughts about why they believe it. There is some loose similarity in the outline of each article, imposed by the editor, but the authors write with such different styles, and emphasize such different points, that the articles are really quite different from each other. Then there are 3-4 reactions to each article, written by people who mostly believe differently than that article's author. These "responders" are all different people than the 3 main article writers - I wish the editor had let each of the 3 respond to each other's articles, but I suppose they wanted even more viewpoints.

I found the book to be extremely interesting, though a little heavy reading, mostly because I kept making notes on everything that I disagreed or agreed with. (I really like the ability to take notes on a book with Kindle, by the way, though it takes me a lot longer to type with the little keyboard.) I found the discussion enlightening, too, since up until a year and a half ago, I hadn't ever heard anyone argue for a young earth. There were some new thoughts in all of the articles for me, some of which I have ruminated over quite a bit now.

I found the young earth article (the first one) to be the least convincing, probably because that is the viewpoint I disagree with most. But I also found many of the arguments to have logical faults. That is the article I probably made the most notes on, as with every logical fallacy made, I just had to make a comment. It was interesting that they admitted that pretty much all scientific data contradicts a young earth theory. It was also not nearly as accusative toward the other viewpoints as I have often heard other young earth proponents be, however, so I appreciated that. In fact, the whole tone of the book was much more cordial than most discussions of this controversy, though a few negative comments (about their opponents) slipped in here and there. The article on old earth, or progressive, creationism probably gave me the most thoughts to contemplate. The article on theistic evolution was by far the most thorough and precise.

[As a side note: I do not have a strong background in biology (I mostly studied physics and astronomy), but I am now inspired to study it more on my own. I think I'll start with a high school text I have handy, and then move on to some of the college material available online. I need to get up to speed before my kids get there, after all!]

I think I fall somewhere in between the viewpoints of the last 2 articles: old earth creationism and theistic evolution. Both made interesting philosophical points, but of course, philosophy cannot prove which viewpoint is the truth. You cannot really prove which Biblical interpretation is the absolute truth either. There really is no way to prove absolutely which viewpoint is the truth, other than going back in time and watching it all happen, or else waiting for God to tell us in heaven. You can decide which viewpoint is more likely, given the scientific data.  Science helps us understand physical reality (as we understand it) - it doesn't cover supernatural intervention, obviously. (And by the way, a "natural" event doesn't mean God had nothing to do with it - it just means it was an event that follows the physical laws we have understood to date.) There really is no way to prove with science what God has done supernaturally. It's like trying to use science to show how a group of worms made a home out of twigs and leaves when actually a little girl came by half an hour ago and made it for them. Perhaps the worms were capable of doing it themselves, but unless she confesses, you might never know how it really happened. (This is not a perfect analogy, so don't try to read more into it!)

My analogy brings up another point, though (in a roundabout way): even if humans evolved from teensy, tiny life forms in the beginning, at some point, I believe God breathed His spirit into us, separating us from all other life forms.  Evolutionists don't have to disbelieve in Adam and Eve. Humans are different than animals (despite some who claim we're not). Our souls are the fingerprint of God. Even if the human form evolved from earlier apes, I believe God chose a single moment in time and a single human-like creature into which He breathed His spirit. God could have created that being at that moment in time, apart from the evolutionary family tree, or He could have taken a special specimen from that family tree and made him at that moment to take on the image of God, creating a true human. I don't think it really matters how God did it, how He created humans. I believe that He did.

I wish it weren't such a controversy among Christians, because that strong, sometimes accusatory and bitter disagreement is a bad example for non-Christians. If we Christians can't accept each other, how would we ever accept them?

I found some interesting statistics a few days ago, from a 2010 survey. (See: 
http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2012/july-august/evolution-and-creationism-infographic.html)
The graphic linked to above doesn't give all the data, but lumps respondents into 3 main groups: those who believe (a) God guided evolution, (b) atheistic evolution (it happened without God), and (c) YEC (young-earth creationism - God created everything about 6000-10000 years ago). These categories are rather vague and lump a lot of people with different viewpoints together (did they not separate out old earth creationists? the remaining category was "other"), but the results are still interesting.

Overall, among all respondents:
God guided evolution: 38%
atheistic evolution: 16%
YEC: 40%

Among weekly church-goers:
God guided evolution: 31%
atheistic evolution: 2%
YEC: 60%
(I wonder about that 2% of weekly church-goers who don't think God had anything to do with it. Are they conflicted internally? Do they attend church only because someone else is making them? Do they attend a church which doesn't believe in a specific God, but is more of a proponent of spirituality in general?)

Among monthly/almost-every-week church-goers:
God guided evolution: 47%
atheistic evolution: 9%
YEC: 41%

Among rare church-goers:
God guided evolution: 39%
atheistic evolution: 31%
YEC: 24%

Here's another survey, from 2012, with similar, but slightly different, results:
http://religion.blogs.cnn.com/2012/06/01/survey-nearly-half-of-americans-subscribe-to-creationist-view-of-human-origins/

I am most familiar with those in the weekly church-goer group, where 60% believe in a young earth. I am a little surprised that number is so high, since among my friends and acquaintances, before I started homeschooling, I only had met 1 (yes, 1 single person) who seemed to be a strong proponent of YEC. Perhaps it's just because it wasn't a big deal amongst us. It wasn't a controversy - just one of those matters in the same category of how many angels fit on the head of a pin. I remember one Sunday School class, when I was in college, I believe, where we briefly mentioned evolution, and the consensus was that God could have created us any way He wanted to!

Since starting to homeschool, the number of YEC believers I have met (online or in person), has skyrocketed. It would be very interesting to see these survey results separated into homeschooler and non-homeschooler categories. I think YEC is a much bigger group among homeschoolers. Maybe 90% or so, but that's just a guess.

As an interesting side-note, I am a member of the yahoo group for the BFSU (Building Foundations for Scientific Understanding) curriculum, and there has recently been a big online discussion about young earth vs evolution. It was quite refreshing to read a discussion like this that wasn't filled with name-calling and accusations, with people willing to hear arguments for all sides. It was also refreshing to hear of many other Christian homeschoolers who are not YEC. We may not be vocal, but there really are some of us out here!

Integrated Worldview

One of BJU's strong points is how integrated their curriculum is. Their classes sometimes cover the same theme at the same time, history tidbits are described in English class, science is mentioned in reading, Bible study is incorporated into most classes, and so on. Due to this, if you use all their classes together, your student will get more than the sum of the parts: extra cultural information is shared throughout their day, classes reinforce each other, and a broad spectrum of knowledge is imparted. It's like your student is attending a school where all the teachers are working together to provide a cohesive and complete learning experience throughout the whole year.

However, this is only wonderful primarily if you share the same worldview as BJU. With their worldview scattered throughout every class, your student will encounter those beliefs everywhere. I had known from the start that I disagreed with BJU in a few key points (young-earth beliefs being the primary one), but thought that if I just skipped the science classes and some of the history classes, I could avoid that belief. I'm finding more and more that this is not going to be the case. I've previewed some of the books for later grades at our local Mardel's store, and have seen young-earth aspects in 4th grade handwriting, 5th grade reading, etc. With the videos, I can never be sure if the teachers might mention something else I disagree with, without having to prescreen all the videos, which I don't have the time or inclination to do. I have been reading more and more issues that others have with BJU (race relationships, disapproval of Catholics, etc.), and find that I have some of these other issues too.

For many people, a few young-earth comments isn't a big deal, but it is to me. It's just like those who don't want their child to be taught that evolution is true (or fill in the blank with any other hot topic you think is wrong), especially in their early years. That's one of the reasons we homeschool instead of sending our children to an outside teacher, whose daily comments (as well as those of the other students) are out of our control and even knowledge. Of course, you can always use it as a teaching experience, discussing with your child why you don't agree with that teaching, but with the BJU videos, these year-long teachers are becoming very close to your student (even if the relationship is one-sided). They look up to these teachers, enjoy them, and trust that they are teaching them the truth. To have to say later that, yes, your teacher said that, but she was wrong - well, that just undermines that teacher's authority and your student may never trust them again (or might even side with the teacher and say that you - the parent - are wrong!). With a textbook or workbook, or a one-time teacher who has not created a relationship with your student, it is much easier to contradict it/them without any detrimental effects.

Now if you do agree with BJU's worldview, then their distance learning classes really are wonderful. I wish there were a company producing such high quality material where everything did agree with my own worldview! But alas, there isn't.

I will continue using the videos for the rest of 1st grade, pre-screening as we go and skipping a few things here and there, but after that, we will try something different, something more eclectic. I have thought of teaching the BJU material myself, just eliminating any aspects that I disagree with, but as I have noted earlier, their material is very teacher-intensive, and I need a more independent curriculum.

I struggled a lot with my oldest daughter for kindergarten and early 1st grade, as that is a time that needs a high level of teacher interaction. BJU 1st grade videos were a lifesaver for us at that time. But now that she can read so much better (BJU did do a wonderful job of teaching her to read - and I know she will just get better in the remaining months we have with 1st grade), we have many more options for independent learning. I think that was what made the biggest difference in her attitude - being able to do school on her own more, without me hovering over her continually. So I will look for material that will allow her to be somewhat independent for at least some of her classes - such as CLE for English, and Math Mammoth for math, perhaps adding in videos from Discovery Education to add interest and some of the "extra-curricular tidbits of interest" that we got from the BJU videos.

For my younger ones, I'm not sure what I'll do, since I do now have the teacher's manuals for BJU K5 and 1st grade. Maybe I'll just use them (we're still doing K5 videos with my middle child now), maybe we'll do a combination of things. I'll have to wait and see what their learning styles are like, I guess.

More to come later, on our continuing saga of curriculum choices!

Charlotte Mason and Evolution

Even though I am happy with our current curriculum choices, I continue to consider the future and other curriculum alternatives. I am a student at heart, and love learning, so it follows that I love learning about methods of learning!

Anyway, I was browsing the Ambleside Online website the other day (amblesideonline.org), which I had apparently never been to before, despite having read other people's comments about the curriculum. It is quite fascinating, and I'm afraid I may end up spending quite a bit more time there, perusing the book lists. Basically, AmblesideOnline (AO for short) is a free online version of the Charlotte Mason approach to learning. The website has much more information about what this approach is, but it involves a lot of "living" books, a lot of nature study and active exploration of our world, hands-on productive craft work, and a somewhat freer approach to learning than textbooks, but yet more structured than student-led approaches, and can be quite rigorous and in-depth even through high school. At least, that's how I would describe it after my brief perusal. Charlotte Mason is the "no twaddle" approach that you may have heard described.

Sonlight, one of my other favorites, is partially a Charlotte Mason approach, so that explains why I am also attracted to AO. AO is cheaper (many of the books on the lists are available for free online - though if you wanted to buy them all, I'm sure the prices would come out close to Sonlight), but requires more planning on the parent's part. It sticks with one book for a longer period of time than Sonlight, and seems to use older texts. Anyway, that's a brief review if you're looking for a curriculum review.

What I mainly wanted to note in this blog is that I was surprised to read that Charlotte Mason believed in evolution and an old Earth. Most Christian adherants to Charlotte Mason homeschooling do not, nowadays, but apparently, in her time, around when Darwin first published his results, many Christians accepted evolution and easily saw how it could be understood as a method God may have used to create the Earth. That has always been my belief too - that God can use any method He wants to create the world, and to just categorically deny this possibility is to put God in a box, making Him smaller than He really is.

I have also read recently about how many Christians, raised with an anti-evolution mindset/worldview, fall away from their belief in God when they study more of the details of evolution in college, and find themselves among people who strongly believe in evolution. This is not surprising to me, as I have personally witnessed this "falling away" of other Christians at this stage of life.

What most Christian homeschool material suggests to prevent this from happening is to teach anti-evolution creationism so strongly in the K-12 years, providing counter-attack arguments to every evolutionary idea, that the student will never doubt their beliefs. One problem with this, however, is that evolutionists have come up with counter-counter-attacks for all these issues, and will continue to do so. If even one of these arguments makes sense to a Christian student who has always been taught that evolution equals atheism, then they risk falling away from God.

What I believe is a much better approach is to teach your young students that even evolution requires God. Even if you don't believe in evolution, you can still teach that those who do believe in it still need to (and can) have God in their equations. Even evolution, despite it making so much of "creation" possible without God's direct hand, still requires God at the beginning - at the very beginning, before time began, before the universe popped into existance. Exactly how much God "guided" evolution is totally debatable (and unprovable - it's just philosophies at this point) - you can go from no interaction at all after a first activating touch, up to frequent guidance at every genetic permutation.

The advent of Adam and Eve is still completely possible with an evolutionary viewpoint:  at a certain time, when the human form had become what God intended it to be, He breathed His spirit into the specimen He had chosen, making Adam the first true human, and quite distinct from all other "animal" forms (created from the dust, no less - from the very smallest building blocks of life - just over a longer period of time than generally assumed). I know - preposterous to many of you who believe evolution to be crazy. But for those whose scientific investigations force them to believe in evolution, would you rather they hold to such a possibility and still believe in God, or have them fall into atheism?

My point is that evolution does not negate God. Evolution does not negate the Bible. It may perhaps require a different interpretation that you are used to, but believe me, it does not negate even the first chapters of Genesis. Those who claim that it does are following tradition, not Scripture.

This is such a sore point with me because I see so many scientifically-minded people throw God and the Bible away, because they have been told so often that "Christians can't believe in evolution." Teaching evolution does not make students fall away from God. Teaching that Christians can't believe in evolution is what make students fall away from God.

Independent, traditional, eclectic, and more!

I finally managed today to return my copy of Cathy Duffy's 100 Top Picks book to the friend I borrowed it from. I think the most useful part to me was the questionnaire portion which helps you determine which teaching style you prefer. I wrote earlier how I ended up with scores very close together for almost all of the styles. Well, after getting a bit more hands-on experience with homeschooling, trying out a few things, and checking out more curriculum, I thought I'd redo the questionnaire and see if my thoughts were any clearer or different.

My scores this time were definitely more widespread. I went from a low of 41.2% (unschooling) to a high of 87.5% (independent), instead of everything being clustered around the 40-50th percentile. Kinda funny - you can see how after attempting to teach hands-on for a few months, I have definitely strengthened my desire to get the kids to work independently! My previous ranking for independent study was still the 2nd highest, but was only 54.2%.

Traditional and umbrella approaches turned out tied for 2nd place at 72.7%. This is quite in keeping with my current decision to use the traditional textbook approach of Bob Jones (added in with the independence aspect of using the distance learning videos). Traditional and umbrella approaches were tied for 3rd place the first time I took the questionnaire.

My original 1st place choice, the classical approach, went down to 3rd place at 69%, followed by eclectic (58.3%), Charlotte Mason (54.8%), unit studies (50%), and finally unschooling (41.2%). These are pretty much in the same order as my original rankings - just more widely spaced percentage-wise.

I do still like the classical and Charlotte-Mason approaches, to some extent, but they are very parent-intensive. I am still using a CM approach for science and mostly history. As I've read others say, science is mostly exposure in elementary school, and the more hands-on, the better. We are having fun doing science right now, and I don't forsee changing to a more traditional method until jr. high or high school. I do like teaching all the kids together, and directly, for a least a few things. As I mentioned last time, I have found many correlations between our Intro to Science course and the BJU science videos, and have been letting the kids watch a video or two a week that goes along with our topic. For 1st grade, I see nothing in BJU science that contradicts my old earth belief.

(I'll add a warning though - the reading portion of BJU grade 1 English lesson #150 does contain a very anti-old earth message, along with what I consider to be false information, so we will be skipping that one.)

I'll continue next time with history.

Long-Term History Plan

I have gone through several iterations of history curriculum planning. The more I learn about literature-based curriculum, the more sure I am that I want to use that method. History was my least favorite subject in school, so I hope to make it more interesting for my kids. Plus, it might be good if I relearned a bit more of it myself, since I skimmed through my own history courses, learning just enough to pass the tests and not really caring enough to commit any of it to long-term memory! Reading interesting books, biographies, original sources, and the like seems much better to me than reading a heavy textbook and memorizing facts. I'm sure some textbooks and workbook programs can be interesting too, if done right, but I am a reader and love books, so literature-based is more than likely going to be the most interesting to me.

In addition to using literature instead of textbooks and/or workbooks, I wanted a history program that could be taught to all 3 children at once. Math and language may have to be taught to each grade level, but history and science are much easier for combining grades. My kids' grades will span 4 years; for example, when Rebekah is in 5th grade, Reanna will be in 3rd and Ryan will be in 2nd (though the 2 little ones will be on the young end of their grades, having November birthdays). I had looked at Sonlight originally, since a friend of mine uses that and offered to show me her material - the very first look I had at any homeschool curriculum. It seemed nice, but the official "rules" seemed to say that they would work well for kids up to 3 years apart, but not 4, so I decided to pass on that one and put Sonlight in the back of my mind. More on that later.

History Odyssey
Meanwhile, my next choice was to use History Odyssey, published by Pandia Press. These are guides with detailed lesson plans for each week, using a couple "spine" books plus lots of other stuff, including coloring books for the younger grades, activity books, lists of books for each topic, etc. In addition to lists of lots of interesting-sounding books, the hands-on aspect also seemed a good idea to me, since, at this age at least, my kids all seem to like making things (though not always - hard to tell now what their learning styles really are - Rebekah rebels at too much cutting and pasting and even coloring). History Odyssey uses the 4-year cycle so prevalent in home school history curriculum, cycling through ancient times, middle ages, early modern, and modern times, going through it all 3 times in the optimal situation of starting in 1st grade.  The guides said that multiple grades could easily use them too, with level 1 being for 1st-4th grade for the first few years, then gradually moving upward in age. The guides themselves are fairly cheap (~$30/year), but then you'd want to buy at least the main books that get used in multiple weeks, the coloring and activity books, and maybe some of the other books so you wouldn't have to be searching the library all the time. And, importantly for me, they described the option of discussing prehistory at the very beginning, allowing for both young-earth and old-earth beliefs. The optional timeline material even provides a "millions of years ago" add-on for those who so desire. You can get a good chunk of each guide as a free sample too, at the Pandia website.

So I was all set to use those, for at least the first 7-8 years (they don't have level 3 of early modern and modern done yet, but that's when I would probably do government/economics anyway). But then I kept searching and researching, which I have found is a dangerous thing for me, since there is always so much more I find interesting and I spend way too much time doing it! Anyway, I won't go through all the other options which I studied and discarded for various reasons. Two other intermediate options did stand out, though, and I still may end up using them too: Intellego unit studies and TruthQuest history guides.

Intellego
Intellego provides a whole bunch of highly-rated unit studies, covering history and science and several other topics (art, orchestra, baseball, etc.). I never thought I wanted to use unit-studies, mainly because they seemed like too much work for the parent. Also, I don't really like the concept of combining all subjects into one. I know it's possible, but it seems contrived to me, and I really like having more separation between subjects, where you can focus on one subject, and not one topic, teaching that subject in the way best suited for that subject.

But Intellego unit studies are narrower than many unit studies, and they seem to be very well laid out for the parent. I still don't think they'd be my favored way of presenting material, but some of the topics might be useful as an add-on to our regular curriculum. They only go up to 8th grade, anyway. They do have some ancient history units which are secular and do talk about millions of years ago, which I would like to introduce to my children. So I might add those on as a short-term study to whatever other history curriculum I choose. I think I may also use some of their studies on unusual topics, such as the Orchestra, Baroque Era, and maybe Folktales. They may be difficult to add in at the same time as our regular studies, since they are geared toward a more intense study, using them - and only them - for a short period of time. Perhaps in summers or between other topics, they would be useful. When I talk about my science choices in another post, I'll add some more notes about some of those Intellego studies.

TruthQuest

The other intermediate option is TruthQuest. These are guides which can be used with any history textbook or other books. In fact, a large portion of the guides are lists of books for each individual history topic or personality. But the other part of the guides is a commentary, describing how everything in history works together (from a Christian viewpoint). Since I have been thinking about using a secular history curriculum, I liked the idea of having a Christian commentary to add to that. With my poor knowledge of history, I think I might need that assistance more than I would in, say, science. I also like the idea of understanding history from a broader perspective, seeing how everything fits together, instead of just knowing the individual facts and not seeing how they are related (which is all my history knowledge consists of).

Anyway, I may or may not get some of these guides as we proceed, depending on how things are going on our own. They mostly seem focused on upper grades, so I wouldn't get them right away anyway. Oh, and they are multi-grade, with one group covering grades 1-5, and the other group covering grades 5-12 (within each single guide, with book suggestions for multiple ages). Many people use these as the basis of their history courses, going through them at their own rate, picking out the topics which interest them more for more in-depth studies. I, however, would probably just use them as an addendum, just for the commentary, since I want something with a more detailed lesson plan already done for me.

Sonlight

Which brings me to my current top choice for history: Sonlight. Yes, I came full circle back to Sonlight. I've been reading all sorts of reviews and comments by people who use Sonlight, and have decided that it really would be quite simple to teach all 3 of my kids with one core, despite their ages being a little bit too spread out. The core guides might require a little bit of tweaking for either Rebekah (adding more material) or Ryan (less material), but they really do sound like they will work great for my kids' ages. They have very detailed lesson plans, requiring very little preparation on the teacher's part. And they are full of wonderful books! Many of the same books as in History Odyssey, actually, but with more of a Christian slant. And despite the Christian slant, they are not as stringent as other Christian curricula which shun old-earth viewpoints. Their guides indicate when anything old-earth might appear, to warn those with a young-earth belief, but they leave it to the parent to choose how to present the material. And their packages do contain books which talk about "millions of years ago." So it seems like a perfect fit to me!

They are expensive, but they come with everything, and if I consider all the books I might end up buying to go along with History Odyssey, it really comes out to be about the same. Plus, it includes Bible (which is an area I had been having trouble deciding what to do) and literature, and lots of writing in the later cores too. I don't think I will use anything else from Sonlight (like language arts or science). One thing I really like about Sonlight is their global perspective. They were originally developed for missionaries overseas, and so their material reflects a solid respect for other cultures. I really like that. I don't want my kids to be centered only on America. Patriotic, yes, but not disdainful of other cultures. I like the compassion toward others that seems to be emphasized in Sonlight's material.

So, I have debated using a combination of Sonlight and History Odyssey for different grades, but I think I am settling on using Sonlight almost all the way. I won't start next year, since I already have 1st grade planned for Rebekah. Since Sonlight is expensive, I don't want to use it for just 1 child, but want to wait until all 3 are old enough to appreciate it more. When Rebekah is in 2nd grade, Reanna will be just starting kindergarten, and Ryan will be in preK. That's when I plan to use Sonlight Core A, which is for K-2 technically, but Ryan should be able to listen in on most of it too. Core A is more of an overview course anyway, talking about cultures. World History starts in Core B, which I would use when the kids are in K, 1st, and 3rd. And then I'd continue from there, up until at least Core 100, and then maybe splitting the kids up a bit more for Rebekah's last few years.

Anyway, that's my long-term plan for history (and Bible and mostly literature too).

Old Earth Creationism

Just a quick entry to say that I've stumbled across a few more websites of interest for the old earth viewpoint.  This blog - http://oldearthcreationism.blogspot.com - is exactly what I was looking for! The author has grade-level lists of curriculum for science that are "old-earth" friendly! I have just barely begun to look into her blog, but I think I will find a lot of useful information there.

Also, by following a few links, I found these websites as well:
http://www.answersincreation.org/index.htm
http://www.reasons.org/

I have not looked at them in any depth, but they seem very interesting, and were recommended by several other sites. Both appear to have content about integrating science with the Bible.

A few more links:
http://geochristian.wordpress.com/ - mostly geology, but also general science from a Christian viewpoint
http://asa3online.org/homeschool/ - not much content yet, but it sounds like they may have some soon (their parent site:  http://asa3.org/)

The Problem with Science and History, Part 3

One final point that concerns me in this debate is the attitude displayed in these Christian curriculums toward those who believe in an old Earth. Some Christians believe that science, and scientists, are anti-God and anti-Christian, and that the world in general places a higher priority and belief in science than in God.  That is true for some scientists, but not for many, and I don’t believe even for the majority.  I read a complaint that scientists (all of them?) believe that science takes precedence over religion, and that religion and God should take a secondary position in the world - even that God is irrelevant in the modern, science-based world.

I say that, when pursuing science, it is not that science takes precedence over God, but that faith in the consistency and logic of God’s creation is affirmed.  If a scientific theory appears to contradict the Bible, then certainly, hold off on a full-fledged commitment to that scientific theory, but don’t discount it entirely either.  Wait for more evidence, and study your interpretation of that part of the Bible.  Biblical interpretations are wrong more often than we like to admit. Remember Augustine’s admonition I quoted earlier!

I have never had problems combining my beliefs with scientific explanations.  I have always seen science as a description of the mechanism by which God works, while my religious beliefs explain why and for what reason God works. In all the years I have learned about science, physics, astronomy, etc., I have never encountered a theory or fact or explanation which flatly contradicted my beliefs. On the contrary, I have always found that learning something new in science has always opened my eyes to a new facet of God or shown me how even more powerful and grand and awesome our God is.

I’m side-tracking from the young-earth debate, but I’ve heard quite a few Christians say that the Big Bang theory is also very anti-God, and doesn’t really answer any questions anyway. The Big Bang theory says that the universe came from an extremely dense, extremely high-energy singularity. It does not explain what happened before the bang, or where the energy came from - but it’s not attempting to do so. Scientists know the limits of their theories. Scientists, contrary to some believers’ accusations, are not trying to explain God, or get rid of Him, or explain Him away, or prove that He does not exist.  They are not theologians. They are trying to explain what we see in our world and gain insight into how the world works.  Nothing in the Big Bang theory claims that God didn’t exist before the Big Bang, or that God didn’t initiate the Big Bang Himself.

I read in a Christian science textbook sample that cosmologists theorize about how the universe began, and if they don’t say that God created everything, then they must put their faith in an untestable or unworkable theory.  I find that statement extremely antagonistic and negative toward scientists.  A person can believe that God created everything and still be interested in figuring out how He did it! (God is outside of time, remember, and outside of our universe. The origin of the universe is not the origin of God.) A scientist isn’t putting his faith in a theory - he’s just postulating a theory in an attempt to learn something. You have to start somewhere! Just because God created the world doesn’t mean that He doesn’t want to let us see anything about how He did it. God gave us minds and made the universe comprehensible, logical, and consistent, just so we can study it and learn about it - and learn about God in the process.

The same textbook continues to say, “It is actually blasphemy to say that the intricate handiwork of God we see all around us is nothing more than fallout from a cosmic explosion.”  Perhaps this is true if you really say the “nothing more” part, but there is no blasphemy in saying that you think God used a cosmic explosion to create the universe. The textbook continues, “The theory diminishes the personal work of a Creator ‘who hath measured the waters in the hollow of his hand, and meted out heaven with the span.’”  Why does pondering how God created the world diminish His work? Does it not exalt Him even more that His creation of man is able to ponder His work? That a Creator who works with such enormous power and energy still created us to have such intricate bodies and perfectly-detailed workings, and still speaks to us as a personal Father to His child?

The last bit in this textbook about the Big Bang theory talks about evolutionary scientists who are trying to improve upon the Big Bang theory (though evolution and cosmology are quite different scientific fields) and figure out why parts of it don’t make sense. That’s fine - a theory is a theory - scientists know theories aren’t perfect, and their job is to try and fine-tune them or change them when they prove to be inconsistent or incorrect. But then the textbook goes on to say that these theory tweaks “are desperate attempts by unregenerate men to explain the universe without acknowledging the Creator.” Seriously? There are plenty of Big Bang theorists and even evolutionists (men and women alike) who acknowledge God as the Creator!

Science is a means for understanding God's works even better. Nothing science can prove can discredit God, since science is just our physical "paraphrase," so to speak, of God's laws and activity. Science can solidify a portion of our knowledge of God into something concrete - something small enough, or straightforward enough, that our minds can grasp it. Science is never meant to explain the "whys" of the world, and no scientist I know has ever assumed that. Out of all the years I studied in college and graduate school, the only time I ever heard a professor say something that sounded anti-God was in a humanities & literature class, talking about morality and good and evil.

Evolution is another related, but definitely distinct issue from the young-earth/old-earth controversy. Even someone who believes in an old earth does not necessarily believe humans evolved from apes, and I am certainly less certain of evolution than I am of an old earth, but still, even evolution could have been used by God. (I believe the Catholics allow for the possibility of evolution more so than Protestants tend to.) I had expected to find Creationism throughout the Christian texts (which is a good thing), and a fair amount of anti-evolution discussions, bringing up all the issues and problems with dating techniques and the lack of a fossil record and other hard evidence, but I really hadn’t thought that the “young earth” concept would be so prevalent, or that so much antagonism toward other scientific theories (and scientists, and science in general) would be voiced.

Since it is, however, most of the science courses offered by Christian curriculum providers, and some of the ancient history courses, are not ones I want to use to teach my children. It’s a shame, really, since I would love to have a science course that credits and praises God for His creation and creativity throughout the universe. (I am fully able to fill in my own thoughts and comments in this area - maybe I’ll have to write my own course material!) I would love to have a history course that fits in Biblical history with secular history, showing God’s hand at work (and may still use such a course, once we get past the more ancient time period). As it is, I will make my children aware of the controversies and the different theories, but I will use secular texts as the core for ancient history and biology and geology and astronomy, and add my own thoughts and other supplemental readings about the wonder and majesty of God’s work.

[Side note:  Upon further research, Sonlight (www.sonlight.com) offers a wonderful history program that is one of the few Christian ones I am happy with, and the more I research it, the more I’m thinking I will use them for at least some years. They do use some secular material that discusses different viewpoints, including an old Earth, and including evolution - usually these sections are not scheduled in their daily plans, but I can always add it in myself, allowing me to teach my children the full story.]

The Problem with Science and History, Part 2

I strongly believe that there is nothing we can prove in science that will be contrary to a belief in God and the Bible.  If there are discrepancies, then either our interpretation of science is wrong, or our interpretation of the Bible is wrong.  God created the world and gave the universe consistent, logical laws.  Science is a detailed, logical, experimental study of the world.  The two cannot be inconsistent.

God created the world to show us more about Himself. Romans 1:20 says, “For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse.” And Psalm 19:1-4 says, “The heavens declare the glory of God; the skies proclaim the work of his hands. Day after day they pour forth speech; night after night they reveal knowledge. They have no speech, they use no words; no sound is heard from them. Yet their voice goes out into all the earth, their words to the ends of the world.”

Add to this the fact that God does not lie or deceive us (this should be obvious, but some Biblical references are Titus 1:2, Numbers 23:19, and Hebrews 6:18), and you should be able to draw the conclusion that God did not create the natural world in a manner that would teach us false or misleading information. If more and more scientific evidence is pointing toward an ancient universe, then we should learn from this, and not say that the evidence is misleading us or has been put there as a test to make it seem like the world is ancient even when it is not (which I have heard some young-earth theorists suggest).

What I have been reading in more and more curriculums is a strong belief that our interpretation of the Bible cannot ever be wrong, and this disturbs me greatly.  It brings up the whole sun-orbits-the-earth debate which got Galileo in trouble with the Catholic church and caused all sorts of theological crises in many people’s minds.

Galileo quoted Augustine:  “If anyone shall set the authority of Holy Writ against clear and manifest reason, he who does this knows not what he has undertaken; for he opposes to the truth not the meaning of the Bible, which is beyond his comprehension, but rather his own interpretation; not what is in the Bible, but what he has found in himself and imagines to be there.”

I read in one young-earth discussion, talking about ideas that try to harmonize the Bible with an old-earth or evolutionary theory:  “They are compromises that have destroyed the credibility of the Bible in the eyes of nonbelievers, so that the Bible’s authority even in moral matters is called into question.  Christians who struggle in their faith in the basic doctrines of the Bible think that if the Bible’s account of Creation, the Fall and Curse, and the Flood are merely myths or symbolic stories, then the doctrines of salvation, separation, and future judgment are probably myths or symbolic stories as well.”

This has not been my experience. My experience has instead been that disagreement about the scientific utility of Genesis has a minor effect on wavering believers, but the insistence on a young earth and absolutely no type of evolution has a major effect on non-believers and on scientifically-minded believers as well.  I have definitely heard non-believers in my scientific career circles dismiss Christianity solely because of the insistence of some believers in the young-earth theory.  The young-earth theory sounds so anti-science and so unbelievable to those who have studied geology or astronomy or several other sciences, that it is an immediate turn-off to many non-believers.  They say that if Christians can believe that, then there’s no way that anything else they believe can be right!

I had a classmate who was raised in a Christian home, who claims he was once a Christian, who turned into an atheist when he realized that evolution could be true. He did not believe that the Christian worldview could be reconciled with evolution, due to so many Christians who say they are irreconcilable.  He did not understand that even evolution, even the Big Bang, requires a Creator. So he kept his faith in his intellect and his logic, and disdained his faith in God.  If he had only been shown that both could be true, despite any apparent surface inconsistencies, he might not have fallen away from God!

As I mentioned earlier, whether the earth is young or old is a disputable matter. It may be a critical point to some people, and it may be a stumbling block, but it really should not affect our salvation. A person does not need to believe one way or the other in this matter to believe and trust in Jesus. The fact that Jesus is the sole way to God is not disputable. The age of the Earth is.

See Part 3.

The Problem with Science and History, Part 1

I consider myself a conservative Christian. I've been a Southern Baptist all my life, usually attend church 2-3 times a week, have been a church pianist in some form or another since high school, pray and read the Bible at home, and have always told people of my beliefs when the subject or opportunity arises. I believe God sent His only son Jesus to Earth to reveal Himself and to pay the penalty for our disobedience, providing a way for us to be with God forever. I believe that Jesus is the only way to God, and that no other belief or religion or being leads to the true God, or to truth in general. I do not believe in universalism, or that everyone will eventually go to heaven just because God is love. I believe the Bible is inspired by God, and even though written by men, I believe every word was given them by God to write down. I believe Noah actually lived and built an ark, and that the Flood did happen. I believe that Adam and Eve were two actual, real, individual people, from whom the rest of humanity came.

All this is just to explain why I think I have a right to consider myself a conservative Christian.

With that as background, I now want to say that as I started researching homeschool science and history curriculum, I found myself shocked to discover that nearly every Christian curriculum firmly espoused a "young Earth" belief - the belief that the Earth is only 6000-some-odd years old. Before, I had heard of this belief, but thought it was only held by a small fringe group. As you may surmise, I cannot agree with any certainty that the Earth is so young, due to the overwhelming amount of evidence from multiple fields of science (geology and astronomy especially) that the Earth is millions of years old (and the universe even older).

I do not find that an old Earth conflicts with my belief that God created the world and everything in it. I do not find that an old Earth conflicts with my belief that the book of Genesis is 100% accurate. Apparent inconsistencies, whether between different verses in the Bible or between the Bible and scientific theories, only lead us to improve on our interpretations, both of the Bible and of scientific observations. They go hand-in-hand.

I will not say with 100% certainty that the Earth is indeed millions of years old - God can do anything He wants to do, and scientific theories are just theories. But I will not say with any certainty that the Earth is only 6000+ years old. I don't believe the Bible is specific enough to make that claim. I think it is a “disputable matter” (see Romans 14). There are all sorts of arguments as to why the Bible "clearly requires" the Earth to be young, and there are all sorts of arguments as to why the Bible requires no such thing, and even some arguments as to how the Bible shows that the Earth is old! All of that with Genesis still being completely accurate.

I started writing out some of my thoughts, but it got to be really long (plus it needs a lot of editing), so I won't put it all in this blog. Someday, I may finish writing it up, and link to it from here, but for now, I found another website that has a lot of the same thoughts as me (though not all), so I'll just point you there if you're interested in reading more: http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/day-age.html.  I'm sure not all of the reasoning there is valid either, but perhaps much of it is. There are also dozens of links to other discussions on that site as well. Another really good article, written specifically to homeschoolers, can be found at the Sonlight website:  http://www.sonlight.com/young_or_old_earth.html.

A friend also gave me some references to a couple of books that discuss the controversy. Links to them are here:

This is turning out to be a very long blog, so I’ve decided to split it into 3 parts. I’ll post them all soon, though, in case you’re eager to read my conclusions!

See Part 2.