Without getting too involved, Entropy is the word you're looking for Christopher. And penny, I wouldn't even use the term microevolution. The word connotates that macro could be possible by years of micro, but I understand that what you mean is variation within a kind of species, but not gaining information evolution.
I just don't see my most of my reading as immersing myself. I usually see it as dissection. I usually start with the premise that the authors are wrong, then cherry pick the good parts. That is why I am usually pretty harsh on characters and authors. Although, anne, you are right that some books have no good, as leavened thoroughly. This is all to say, most of this literature isn't my first choice, and most all of "classic" lit that I've read has been assigned.
Definitely did not see Anne's opinion in the Scarlet Letter. Just because the literature is not explicitly christian doesn't make it bad. Besides well developed prose and plots, many of those books carry good themes. The danger of hypocrisy in Scarlett letter, horror of racism in Huck Finn, etc; No reason we can't keep the grain and discard the chaff on the famous literature.
Personally, I don't know how I would function at a public school as such. I attend a small private in the south, so it's not a deal down here. Still, my every essay, how I read textbooks and assigns books, how I think about all my classes is from a Christian perspective. (To be clear, I don't mean a perfected perspective, but that that the bible and it's message are my default way of handling and processing information, doesn't mean I always process exactly correctly though, but I try). Point is, if they asked me any question, especially in English classes, I can't answer without thinking that way.
Gs, SteveR is right in saying creation is important. Consider: the wages of sin are death. Death and sin are found in genesis 1-3. Adam was the federal head of sin, but Jesus is called the last Adam. Creation also addresses many atheists biggest (and understandable) complaint, the problem of evil. Think Paul on mars hill as a creationist apologetic sermon. I have a feeling ham will present the Gospel for sure. My only problem with debates are that they are too rigid and focus on scoring and winning instead of sharing and talking. There should be more friendly debates like the flew/habermas one where there are no time limits, just discussion point by point.
I've heard of that book Neil, but haven't gotten around to getting it. The explanation I attempted to proffer earlier was by Dr. John Hartnett. Like you, I agree most of what I've read goes over my head, but that doesn't stop me from reading and at least trying to have a slight understanding so as to be ready to give a defense for whoever asks. And Gs, I feel like you paint biblical scientists in a bad light. Personally, It's not that I don't trust scripture, it is that I do is the reason I explore and try to understand scientfic things. I don't see it as discrediting God or his power, but for me, the study is a crediting to God and magnifies his power. It is not that someone is subjecting God to the laws of the universe, but rather exploring the laws he created. Because I have simple faith in what He has said, I want to know more of him through his creation (and word of course). I'm in agreement with Newton's statement that science is thinking God'a thought after him, and it is also exemplary of faith in his Word.
Well mike, you raise some questions I have too. I'm not an expert either, but I feel it's an important topic which is why in trying to learn. Trying to answer your questions, 1) poor argument, but no scientist argues they are not as far as we say. We can't prove they aren't closer by going there, and while majority isn't a good argument, it's about all I know. I'll try to think upon and answer the rest of your questions when I can get the chance, but for us lay men, those are good questions
You're welcome UPS, and thanks for the ear. Many people might gloss over a question, but some honestly see distant starlight as a reason for an old earth, like the first comment on this topic. So, I like to have an answer for those asking, although it's not a great detailed answer when i say it, it's still a sensible and possible one. Some people might think we overstep our bounds in asking how God did it in natural terms, but I think not. Coming up with a physics explanation to demonstrate God'a power and instituting the laws only makes me marvel at his power more. After all, this attitude of wanting to know more about God's creation and His sustaining it is what lead to Newton, Kepler, and Galileo's famous discoveries. As Newton said, science is thinking God'a thoughts after him. Because this cosmogony could be wrong and is theoretical, I'm not dogmatic. But still, it's possible and consistent with both Genesis and what we observe in creation., nor does it limit the Almighty.
Ok, God created created a mature Adam and a mature tree of life. This we agree on. We also agree that he created the stars on day 4.
The part that I find potentially deceptive is only in regards to distant starlight. Consider: The question is how could adam see the light from stars, (and us) if stars were only created 2 days earlier and are often many millions of light years away. A common answer is that the light was created in transit, or already on its way. If God created starlight, in transit, then when we observe the lights and explosions from stars that are over 6500 light years away, then in a 6500 year universe, we are receiving false information. For instance, if we observe a star to explode at 20 million light years away, we can see that starlight, and that starlight and was carries information (neutrinos and time and other info.). It's not just light though, because that light and information is telling us that that star actually did explode, a historical actual event, but if the light was created already on its way, then we are receiving false information about that exploding star, which didn't explode or might not exist. Some will say that the speed of light has changed, but there is nothing to support that theory. So the question remains, how do we see
Well, UPS, it's primarily a semantic issue I think. The phrase, "appearance of age" carries the connotation of deception, you can see why that would be problematic. Mature, to me, is a better description of how the item on earth were created. The issue isn't so much with Adam and the tress and what not on earth, because we can observe those here in time. We don't have to pretend false info with Adam like we do with starlight in transit. Thus, the phrase is primarily problematic (to me) with starlight, because that would indicate that the stars appear old but that they actually aren't, and the light we see is actually not conveying truthful information. I'm not a physics, astronomy, or cosmology expert, but I find no contradiction invoking cosmological relativity which I explained briefly as I could earlier. Succinctly put, that phrase is misleading in regards to starlight, but not Adam and the trees. But like I said, mature and appearance of age (built in lexicon, etc convey the same idea, so maybe I am being overly semantic, but the eliptical portion of the words "it appears" is that is isn't, and that just carries a deceptive connotation to me.. Perhaps that clears my position a bit.
I wouldn't be so quick to write it off so dismissively, Jsc. The stats above suggest that 66% percent do believe it, and with the dogmatic teaching of it in classrooms, it's liable to get worse. I personally think this is a quite important and serious issue.
Christopher, I believe it was spurgeon who said, the difference in the right and wrong isn't the difference in truth and not truth, but true. and almost true. Or something to that effect. But I concur that it is perplexing at times.
Cont... Which is not seen or observed but proposed in order to have enough mass to even have a Big Bang. A guess it is. Therefore, the creationist model makes much more sense astronomically and geologically (and other fields) as pointed out by a few commenters here.
I actually disagree with j4j and UPS a bit here. Appearace of age is a poor choice of words in my opinion, respectfully. It sounds deceiving. They were created mature, however. Yes, Adam and Eve were created old without navels and a built in lexicon, but the starlight question is valid. First, however, old earthers have to account for starlight themselves, because in 14 billion year old universe (as currently proposed,) but we can see light in the universe from farther than that e.g. 50 billion light years. So, as for a creationist model, which is confusing, it goes something like this from my understanding. The way God stretched out the heavens the first four days made the clocks in space run faster than the 24 hour clocks on earth. This is known as time dilation and proved by einsteins general theory of relativity. So, the stars are actually old enough due to the way God stretched, but Adam and Eve the universe are still young. (Super simple explanation is best I can do) Far as the start of the Big Bang, I'd like to know how a black hole of infinite density and no volume suddenly pops into time and space, which doesn't exist, and then someho destroys the infinitely dense black hole via a "quantum fluctuation." Not to mention the fudge factor of "dark matter" which is
Mr b, I would say it is even sillier. We actually see some people who look like Santa at least, but nothing resembles soup to philosopher. Good sense, dr Morris was quite the scientist, helped give rise to the modern creationism movement, which is very important, and is defended beautifully at creation ministries international by some brilliant scholars.
If the museum is presenting evolution, then do remove God's name from the egregious lie. He didn't put billions of years of suffering under Adams perfect feet and call it good. Of course, there they go most definitely establishing their religion. It's impossible not to, because when you ban one, you encourage the others. (In this case, the misotheist and antitheist crowd.)