[photon]

Originally Posted by llama64

Think about the context of the time. The world was really tiny to the people who would write the story of a flood down. The bit about Noah and the Ark could certainly be fully made up, but the concept of a "great flood" exists in nearly every culture and seems to tie in to the same time period. It's an interesting theory despite having no evidence beyond supposition and mythology to back it up. The scientists are in the process of trying to prove it though.

This is kinda what I mean when I said that some elements of a book like the Bible could be factual while others are unscientific.

I agree, you have to look at it in the context of the time. When the author wrote about the flood I'm sure it was based on an oral history that was based in reality.. a huge flood that nearly wiped their culture maybe. Floods are common events around rivers and people liked to live near rivers, regardless of culture.

But still very different from a global flood that covered every landmass over the highest mountains; for various reasons an impossibility (such as the amount of energy generated by that much water falling from the sky, or where that water went).

The only thing a person is missing by dismissing the bible is an understanding of a significant part of Western Civilization. It's in a person's best interest to investigate everything they can. Or at least that's what I think

I agree, which is why I tried to differentiate between understanding and partaking.. it's possible to investigate it without believing that your only hope of eternal salvation is through belief and subjugation to Jesus.

I have training in History, which gives me a great appreciation towards understanding things in an artistic and scientific sense. Personally I'd like to pass that appreciation on to kids at a younger age so they can grow up with a better understanding of how to critically rate new information. Understanding the significance of religion to our culture is something that I think a lot of people disregard, which leads to a lot of distrust of people who choose faith over other world views.

I can definitely agree with that.

I'd bet that if kids were presented ID and other more scientific theories of "creation", the ones based on science would win out, especially in the context of the rest of the curriculum. Kids arn't idiots. The more information available to them at an early age, the better the understanding of issues at a later age.

Unfortunately that's not the case though, just look at the kids that go to school and only get the scientific view of our origins but still only believe the creation stories they're indoctrinated to believe by their parents.

Something like ID isn't worth teaching beyond the awareness of it.. it isn't science in the slightest, and it isn't religion, it isn't anything except a negative argument. Teach it like geocentricism is taught if anything.