ISEN-ASTC-L Archives

Informal Science Education Network

ISEN-ASTC-L@COMMUNITY.LSOFT.COM

Options: Use Forum View

Use Monospaced Font
Show Text Part by Default
Show All Mail Headers

Message: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Topic: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Author: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]

Print Reply
Subject:
From:
Lisa Jo Rudy <[log in to unmask]>
Reply To:
Informal Science Education Network <[log in to unmask]>
Date:
Fri, 25 Mar 2005 17:26:18 EST
Content-Type:
text/plain
Parts/Attachments:
text/plain (49 lines)
ISEN-ASTC-L is a service of the Association of Science-Technology Centers
Incorporated, a worldwide network of science museums and related institutions.
*****************************************************************************

by the way -- so far as I am aware, nowhere in the Bible does it say that the 
earth is 6,000 years old.  this number was derived from "begats;" you can 
click on this hyperlink to see how he did it: 
http://www.independencebaptist.org/6,000%20Year%20Old%20Earth/6,000_year_old_earth.htm The assumptions are that 
(1) all the begats are listed; (2) all of the time periods described are 
literally correct as translated into English.

The same is true of the concept of trinity, which is not in the Bible either 
(at least, not in its present form).  There is mention of a holy spirit, but 
it's never described as part and parcel of a trinitarian godhead.

Where I'm going with this is to say -- As a reader of a big chunk of the 
bible, and an ex-student of religion, I find it to be absolutely impossible to 
"literally" read the Bible.  

Fact is - -the Bible is self-contradictory on many, many points.  Just 
starting with Genesis, one has to confront two separate creation stories: the one in 
which Adam and Eve are made of clay ("male and female created He them") and 
the one in which Eve is made from Adam's rib.  In order to make sense of this, 
you have three choices: (1) note that these are two separate creation myths; 
(2) decide that only one of these is true and the other is false; (3) come up 
with some strained logic which allows both to be true.

I think that, most of the time, folks who quote the Bible as literal truth 
are not as familiar as they might be with the actual book itself.

Back to science, though, I agree with those who say that there are a lot of 
assumptions made in order to even START doing science -- and that those 
assumptions are not "truth" -- they are interpretations of experience.  Objectivity, 
in my opinion, is simply unobtainable; so we do our level best with the 
scientific method.

Lisa Jo Rudy, Writer/Consultant
625 Chelten Hills Drive
Elkins Park, PA 19027
http://www.lisarudy.com/
215-635-9735

***********************************************************************
More information about the Informal Science Education Network and the
Association of Science-Technology Centers may be found at http://www.astc.org.
To remove your e-mail address from the ISEN-ASTC-L list, send the
message  SIGNOFF ISEN-ASTC-L in the BODY of a message to
[log in to unmask]

ATOM RSS1 RSS2