Warning From Field Museum President: Bible Is Not Science

[NNN0LHI]

http://www.suntimes.com/output/news/cst-nws-evol08.html

The president of the Field Museum warned on Tuesday that efforts to add the religion-driven "intelligent design'' theory to school science classes threaten America's position as a technological leader.

"Everything in science is based now on evolution. If these kids don't get that in middle school and high school, we're going to lose a whole generation of scientific inquiry and minds,'' Field president John McCarter said as the museum previewed its new $17 million evolution exhibit "Evolving Planet."

'Easy answers'

McCarter blamed the intelligent design movement on conservative Christians who are Bible literalists.

Society should "celebrate'' the account of creation in the Bible as "great stories,'' said McCarter, "rather than demanding we impose those ideas on scientific research in the 21st century.''

[DoYouEverWonder]

1. Since the people who wrote the bible

all thought the earth was flat and that the sun revolved around us, I wouldn't put much 'faith' in their theories about how the earth began.

[ProdigalJunkMail]

5. not to be too picky, well, yeah, to be picky...

where in the bible do you get that the authors believed the earth was flat? Now, I will grant you that the leaders of the church in later years believed that (and would kill people who tried to speak otherwise) but the authors of the bible make no such statement.

subjectProdigal

[DoYouEverWonder]

8. Where do you get

that they believed it was round?

I don't think we have much proof either way since the bible was never meant to be a science book. However, when arguing with fundies who promote Intelligent Design I think it is a good way to point out that the people who wrote the Bible and later the people who compiled it had a lot of ideas about the world that turned out to be wrong.

[ProdigalJunkMail]

9. sorry, but I asked you the question

they may have believed that, but it is nowhere in the bible. And I agree, there is no proof either way so I guess we are just jousting at windmills. I personally believe that the people (or person) who wrote Genesis (at least the first chapters) were not out to give a scientific creation account. They were out to say that God created everything...from the beginning to the end and that is where they started. I feel sorry for people who struggle like mad to make our universe fit the first chapter of a book written thousands of years ago. There are some neat correlations, but some of it just doesn't match up unless you end up twisting either the bible or already proven science.

Just my two cents...

subjectProdigal

[DoYouEverWonder]

10. Genesis is just humans attempt

to explain the world around them. They didn't have much to go on for reference points, so they did their best with what they had. The story of Genesis really isn't that far off considering but it's still just a short story. There's certainly not enough info there to base scientific theories on. Unless you want to talk about the part where the sons of gods came down and mated with the daughters of men to create a super race? The fundies don't want to go near that part.

[ProdigalJunkMail]

11. ahhh...the Nephilim...

fun one-liner in the bible. What the heck are we to do with that??? :-)

subjectProdigal

[papau]

14. the Nephilim leaving 14 ft human skeletons around - what does science

do with that?
http://www.geocities.com/nephilimnot/nephilim

[Devlzown]

13. That is a strange passage.

My father is a minister and he got into a dispute with some other ministers over those verses. My father was teaching that the Sons of God were angels (that had something to to with Hebrew and Greek words) and they mated with women. Some of my father's colleagues even accused him of being a heretic. That is a very obscure passage in the Bible, but it has caused more controversy.

[Geoff R. Casavant]

15. There is at least one reference to a flat earth

Specifically, it's called "the circle of the earth," and my understanding is that the word used for "circle" means exactly that, a disc, rather than a sphere.

Isaac Asimov once did an essay describing all the other verses and references to the cosmology of the Bible. Unfortunately I can't put my hand on that particular volume right now. But the verses make clear they considered the world to be a flat circle, resting on pillars on an infinite ocean.

To be sure, there were those in the ancient world who had deduced the shape of the earth, but that knowledge had not made it to the authors of those particular verses.

[ProdigalJunkMail]

17. the reference you speak of is in Isaiah

chapter 40 verse 22. This reference has been discussed in the manner you speak and from what I can glean the term did mean circle and not sphere. The question (one of a few, at least) that would come into play here is whether we look at literal interpretation or figurative/imagery interpretation. Isaiah is speaking of God being enthroned above the 'circle of the earth'. In the same passage he speaks of the canopy of the heavens being a tent and people being grasshoppers... princes of the earth being blown upon by God and swept away as chaff...I think you get the idea. Much of the bible is imagery and not for scientific explanation...heck MOST of it is.

And this does not meant that the author of Genesis made any implications that the world was flat...this is a once used reference.

subjectProdigal

[Geoff R. Casavant]

18. Your point is well taken

I too believe that the words are poetic imagery. But Mr. Asimov's point, as well as mine and I believe the point of the person who first person who raised this issue above, is that those whom we fight have insisted that the Bible may only be read literally, not figuratively. Thus, accepting the literalism of scripture necessarily leads to the conclusion that the earth is flat.

[ProdigalJunkMail]

19. your point is excellent as well

I don't know why people cannot see imagery for imagery...but hey, to each his/her own. Accepting the literalism of scripture blinds you to the things that are actually there...especially when things are taken out of the context and mistranslated (or poorly translated (the Hebrew and Greek use over 11,000 different words in the bible...the english version average about 6,500...ya think something might get lost in there???)). This whole message (I think I am typing on the right topic) about women being inferior to men...the bible only says that if you hunt and peck verses and take them out of context. The bible actually makes women out to be something to be cherished and protected. I just don't get it...

subjectProdigal

[acmavm]

Whoa.There's way tooooooo much reality in that article for

the creationist crowd to be able to take. Arteries will be popping all over the place.

I believe firmly in God. I also believe in evolution. My God isn't a poor man's Amazing Kreskin. He's a God who would do things intellgently and logically. And let the the cards fall where they may. (That's the free-will thing.) But I do still have a problem with a couple of theological tidbits that I suppose will be answered in the end.

[lwcon]

2. The late Henry Morris "refuted" this

http://vastleft.blogspot.com/2006/03/stupid-darwin.html

[rman]

3. But both are about ideas;

and theories are ideas, so it's all equally valid - or so the reasoning of the reli-RW seems to go.

[xchrom]

4. and now we know that our genes are still evolving.

this makes the debate even more interesting.

[Devlzown]

6. They don't complain when we don't feed

and clothe the poor, and they don't complain when we start wars and kill innocents but it just twists their tits if someone doesn't believe in the creation story.:eyes:

[fasttense]

7. Finally someone said the obvious

How can we expect to be world leaders in science and technology when we ridicule and condemn science to our children?

Where are all the doctors going to come from if we tell our children to ignore science and only follow the bible? The bible has never given humans any medical breakthroughs. The bible is not a scientific document and never will be.

Preaching ID and creationism is destroying the scientific curiosity of our children.

[benburch]

12. Excellent.

I'm sure he will get major grief over this, but Excellent.

[genie_weenie]

16. Field Museum also has an exhibit called

Soil, which is very Kid friendly and interactive (I, not being a kid, also enjoyed Soil) and the "literal" last days of Pompeii, since it will be leaving in March to make way for the King Tut Exhibit, which when I was akid I missed back in the 1970s at the Field.

Go to the Field Museum, support the Chicago Bears....

The Museum of Science and Industry is also very good, I always try to make it for the Christmas Tree Displays, that is when I'm not in Afghanistan or Iraq...