I'm with you on that one, Shane. I like to dance too. I can't see a thing wrong with dancing with your wife. I have even gone out to a live-music place for dancing with my wife. I wouldn't get into the habit but I didn't feel it was wrong. We had a good time and it was nice to get out and be romantic like that.

Well, I'll just call it unbiblical (for literalists) and leave it at that.

Oh yeah, and I like to dance with my wife too. I'm less of a fan of dancing when my students do it rhetorically to avoid the fact that their position is inconsistent, though.

Yes, and imagine if it's wrong.

I've heard you talk about teaching before and I am sure it's a science, but which one or ones?

I was a high school chemistry and physics teacher (who sometimes got dragooned into teaching maths too). I am now a teacher educator, so I teach physics teachers for secondary schools and a science teaching course for middle school teachers (who will teach every subject). I'm actually also in the process of signing up to study a bit more physics myself, just to keep the old brain sharp...

Yet, the GSRI disagrees with that opinion and they are supported by many Biblical scholars with PhDs in ancient Hebrew.

And what does that lead too? He says, she says! Opinions! Thats all! Start a thread or section on the philosophy of creation, thats okay.

I am always amazed why people down through the centuries have this distrust of science when it disagrees with their own set of theories. Science is okay to use and exam when it doesn't threaten us. If our beliefs feel threatened and we are uncomfortable with examining them, what does that say about our beliefs?

We can always ask the moderator if they will allow a separate area for philosophical discussions, but keep it separate! I am more interested in the science of creation. Go Super Collider!!

This is not a science forum. Just read the title. It is an "Origins" forum. Some people think that means science. I don't. I think that means philosophy.

Science is observable, repeatable and measurable. We can't go back in time to observe creation or the big bang. We can't repeat it and we obviously we can't measure it. We can look at evidence that we have today (which is a snap shot in time) and theorize about how things use to be and what happened. That is pseudo-science. It is not the hard science that gave us pasteurized milk, electric light, a cure for polio or sent us to the moon.

Shane, it's fairly common for people to refer to anything related to creationism as "origins" or "theory of origins" or "origins science." Of course scientists are interested in how it all began, and while we'll never be able to go back to the beginning to watch, over time we'll know more than we did before.

Saying this forum isn't about science because it's called "Origins" is a bit silly, don't you think? We are surrounded by the natural world, and if that doesn't lead to scientific thinking, I don't know what does.

I think that rainbows are beautiful; flying in a plane is a miracle, every single time; mountains are awesome to climb and to behold; and don't get me started on the amazing worlds in the oceans. Scientists and naturalists and inventors—people, they are, like you and me—figured out how rainbows work; how planes fly; how mountains were made; and the ocean is a vast testament to what we still don't know. It seems like we ought to be able to wonder and to question and to learn without having our faith threatened by what we learn.

It's safe to believe that Genesis is meant to be read literally. It's crazy and dangerous and exhilarating and life-affirming to learn that there's so much more.