What to make of a creation statement from a Christian school

[Ugly customer]

Hello

This is my first post on this forum. Usually I just I enjoy lurking here, but I just came across an issue where I believe the XKCD forum is the right place to find intelligent opinion. I need your help in understanding a statement from a school.

A friend of mine has a 14 year old younger brother who is going to start studying at a new school. The parents are considering sending him to the Christian International School of Prague. My friend and I wanted to know if this is a good idea.

The school board and teachers come from the following organizations: Campus Crusade for Christ, ReachGlobal, International House of Prayer, International Institute for Christian Studies, Prague Christian Fellowship, International Mission Board, TEAM, World Venture and SEND.

On the school website they post a Creation statement which reads:

"We believe that God created the cosmos and everything in it, and that he continually rules over all of creation. While we believe that there are several viable interpretations of Genesis 1 and 2, we affirm that God directly created the world. We deny that creation came about merely through a naturalistic process of evolution (evolution understood as time plus chance plus natural selection). Specifically, he created human beings in his image, thus endowing them with an immortal soul, an essential dignity, and a special position as stewards over creation. We have been entrusted by God to develop his creation carefully, creatively, and responsibly, in order to glorify God and love other people."

English is not my first language, but I usually have no problem reading a complex text. In this case I have read the statement over and over and somehow I can´t quite wrap my head around it. I am hung up on the word “merely”. Would “merely” in this sentence mean “Not only a naturalistic process but also a divine one” i.e. God having a hand in everything somehow, or is the statement to be read as “Not a naturalistic process, period“. That´s an important distinction.

I wonder what the boy actually will be taught and what the wider consequences of such instruction could be. If the school denies evolution how can they teach him about how organisms develop and how genetic traits follow generations for example? And what about earth sciences? If the origin of earth is not to be understood as a process of planet formation in the early days of the solar system billions of years ago but instead as number of divine events that occurred over a week around 4000 B.C. what would follow from that view?

If anyone in this forum went to a Christian school, or have any experience with the organizations above I would really like to hear about your experiences. What did you learn? Did they prepare you for further studies, respected other worldviews and encouraged your critical reasoning?

Cheers!

[Azrael]

... somehow I can´t quite wrap my head around it. I am hung up on the word “merely”. Would “merely” in this sentence mean “Not only a naturalistic process but also a divine one” i.e. God having a hand in everything somehow, or is the statement to be read as “Not a naturalistic process, period“. That´s an important distinction.

I find the phrasing itself is vague, rather than it being a translation issue. Assuming it to be a formal use (meaning strict adherence to definition) it would indicate "not only". However 'merely' is also frequently used as a trivialization that would imply, in this case, "not a naturalistic process" with a degree of disdain for that process. While the latter use isn't exactly 'proper', it certainly occurs.

[AvatarIII]

i think the inclusion of

(evolution understood as time plus chance plus natural selection).

implies that they are possibly open to the idea of "evolution understood as time plus God's guiding hand"

to be honest though, your best bet is for someone to talk to the school about it, or, the boy is 14, i'm sure he probably already has an opinion on science vs god already, even if it's not set in stone, if he already believes in evolution, i doubt anything is going to change that,

is the school a boarding school do you know, or will he be coming home every day? i think this is probably an important question, because at a boarding school he is not going to have to opportunity to come home and ask his parents about what he has learned, and is probably more likely to recieve any thing he is taught without anything to counter it.

[omgryebread]

I went to a Catholic school that taught evolution. The line in biology was "evolution, there's overwhelming evidence, it's true." The line in religion class was "Does this look like a biology classroom to you? I failed biology, had to take summer school. Don't ask me." The official stance though was that God created everything, but doesn't really specify how he did it. The Church says it's a science question, not a religious one.

The statement you posted could quite easily be interpreted as something like the Catholic Church's position of "God started it, but yeah, evolution is possible, ask science." Unfortunately, the school and the organizations you listed don't seem to agree.

Campus Crusade for Christ:
http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2005/11/13/1131816809073.html
http://crupress.campuscrusadeforchrist.com/green/_assets/resources/Irreducible_Complexity.pdf

The International Mission Board is a Southern Baptist Organization, and they deny evolution.

All I can find on the school itself and evolution is that they sent some students to a conference involving other European Christian International Schools. One workshop was this:

5. Interesting Facts about Creation - Mátyás Cserháti, Christian bioinformatician and geneticist
Room: Blue Building Room 1
Is evolution fact or fiction? What does science say about it?

Another seems to promote Young Earth Creationism (though they are careful to make it look like they are just considering it carefully, like all good pseudo-science)

1. Noah’s Flood: Washing Away Millions of Years - Dr. Terry Mortenson
Room: Gymnasium
Doesn’t the fossil record point to the fact that the earth is millions of years old? Isn’t just one glance at the
erosion of the Grand Canyon enough to confirm this? Doesn’t Carbon 14 dating corroborate the view that
the earth must be extremely old? And if the earth is that old, isn’t this at odds with the Genesis account of
creation? Or does the Biblical narrative of the Great Flood in Noah’s Day offer a better explanation for
what we see around us? Using almost a hundred photographs, drawings, and diagrams during this
fascinating but easily comprehensible 1 hour lecture, Dr Mortenson employs his decades of scientific
training and Biblical study to offer a solid Biblical response to these and many other questions.

They also seem to promote biblical marriage (codeword for man in charge, woman barefoot and pregnant in the kitchen making him a sandwich) and other similar attitudes. These organizations are hardline evangelists, so I highly doubt they respect other viewpoints, or promote critical thinking.

[cephron]

Hi, another lurker posting for the first time, to try to answer this (really good) question.

The 'merely' here could probably be replaced by 'only', to get a better sense of the meaning:
"We deny that creation came about only through a naturalistic process of evolution (evolution understood as time plus chance plus natural selection)."

They believe that God had a hand in our creation, in some form or another. It's unclear to me whether they believe that God had to actively guide evolution with little miracles, or whether he could have just set things up so they'd turn out the way he planned (then the process might be considered naturalistic, just with divinely selected initial conditions), but the idea is clear. I would sum it up as: "whatever the physical explanation for our existence turns out to be, we believe God is ultimately behind it." They state the specifics about our being made in God's image, etc. I think this sounds like a reasonably healthy perspective for a Christian school to have.

(Myself, I'm pretty convinced God used evolution to create us. Dunno if he used 'little miracles' or not, but I think not using them would be more elegant

[Sheikh al-Majaneen]

It sounds to me like they are trying to walk a thin line in the middle, and probably have a mixed staff.

When they say "not merely naturalistic," they mean your former theory, not just naturalistic, but divinely guided. They are not denying evolution; if they were, they would have been much clearer about it.

[Tirian]

edit: nvm, the statement seems really wishy-washy. I get a different impression from it every time I read it.

[Роберт]

omgryebread and Azreal are probably correct, from my experience.

They seem like they are saying "You'd definitely better believe God created everything, even if you interpret Genesis differently and believe that silly evolution thing happened (which it didn't)".

[Hedonic Treader]

Would “merely” in this sentence mean “Not only a naturalistic process but also a divine one” i.e. God having a hand in everything somehow, or is the statement to be read as “Not a naturalistic process, period“. That´s an important distinction.

I think it's less important than most people think. A real problem - or at least something that should be a real problem - of religions with long traditions based on divine revelation is that they can't really re-write their historical beliefs without seriously undermining the value of their own traditions, which are, after all, supposed to be based on revealed divine knowledge.

"Creation by divine fiat" and "creation by letting evolution run" are very different things, and the historical meaning of the theistic creation myths was very literal, not metaphorical.

(Myself, I'm pretty convinced God used evolution to create us. Dunno if he used 'little miracles' or not, but I think not using them would be more elegant

Is there an even remotely sane reason why an omnipotent benevolent being would choose, of all possible things, "design by agonizing gigadeath" as his practical creation tool?

[cephron]

Is there an even remotely sane reason why an omnipotent benevolent being would choose, of all possible things, "design by agonizing gigadeath" as his practical creation tool?

That probably depends on your definition of "benevolent"; lots of different assumptions tend to be packed into it by different people.

The Judeo-Christian God, anyway, seems to value growth through struggle and triumph over adversity. Evolution seems to fit that theme nicely, imo.

[Hedonic Treader]

That probably depends on your definition of "benevolent"; lots of different assumptions tend to be packed into it by different people.

Yeah, I guess you're right. That's the key strategy of religion: Express your claims in the language of pseudo-factuality, but interpret them as vaguely as possible, so no one can ever refute them.

The Judeo-Christian God, anyway, seems to value growth through struggle and triumph over adversity. Evolution seems to fit that theme nicely, imo.

Technically, the Judeo-Christian God doesn't "seem" to value anything, considering there's zero evidence of his very existence.

[philsov]

Ignoring the "merely" aspect....

Specifically, he created human beings in his image

Would seem to suggest that "while the world and all other life forms on it are the quite possibly results of billions of years of mutation+natural selection, humans were divinely popped into existence perfect and as-is" sort of notion. Which is rather easily refuted, but I doubt they'd listen to such things.

[cephron]

Yeah, I guess you're right. That's the key strategy of religion: Express your claims in the language of pseudo-factuality, but interpret them as vaguely as possible, so no one can ever refute them.
...
Technically, the Judeo-Christian God doesn't "seem" to value anything, considering there's zero evidence of his very existence.

Them be fightin' words for a different thread, sir.

Ignoring the "merely" aspect....

Specifically, he created human beings in his image

Would seem to suggest that "while the world and all other life forms on it are the quite possibly results of billions of years of mutation+natural selection, humans were divinely popped into existence perfect and as-is" sort of notion. Which is rather easily refuted, but I doubt they'd listen to such things.

I don't think humans necessarily needed to "divinely pop in" at all. It's possible God could have simply set up the initial conditions such that people came into being the way God wanted them. But anyway, I always thought the "in his image" more refers to the being of our spirit/soul, not our physical image. I doubt a being outside of time and space would have two arms and legs, a nose, etc.

[LaserGuy]

The Judeo-Christian God, anyway, seems to value growth through struggle and triumph over adversity. Evolution seems to fit that theme nicely, imo.

Technically, the Judeo-Christian God doesn't "seem" to value anything, considering there's zero evidence of his very existence.

I'm not really sure this is true. If I read Lord of the Rings, I can say that there are definitive things that the character Gandalf values, even though Gandalf does not exist as a physical person, because Gandalf is a representation of a possible real person with real values; likewise, even if the Judeo-Christian God does not exist, I can still say, within the context of the text, that there are specific things that it values (eg. absolute obedience).

[Hedonic Treader]

I'm not really sure this is true. If I read Lord of the Rings, I can say that there are definitive things that the character Gandalf values, even though Gandalf does not exist as a physical person, because Gandalf is a representation of a possible real person with real values; likewise, even if the Judeo-Christian God does not exist, I can still say, within the context of the text, that there are specific things that it values (eg. absolute obedience).

Ok, fair enough. It's just that these representations are so vague that "ultimate benevolence" becomes compatible with letting children die excruciating deaths etc. Same for valueing absolute obedience, that's technically incompatible with god-given freedom to sin. It's like depicting Gandalf in such a way that every possible attribute can be projected onto him - and then seriously believing that he actually exists.

[podbaydoor]

Cognitive dissonance in religion? Say it ain't so!

OT: That statement reads to me like there are some fairly creationist people in those organizations competing with more liberal Christians, plus there is the overarching need to not sound completely nuts in order to attract students. So they come out with a statement that hints at various things but the proof will be in the classroom teaching.

[Dark Avorian]

I think Azrael already mentioned this, but with regards to "merely..." I read that as a veiled commentary on that option. Essentially they are are calling a purely natural process less valuable and less powerful than a divine process (and...despite being an atheist, you can't really argue with that ...). To me it sounds like they are saying that it is ridiculous that you could think that all this *vague hand motion demarcating my body* and all that *vague gestures at some plants out the window* were made by just chance.

[Greyarcher]

We deny that creation came about merely through a naturalistic process of evolution (evolution understood as time plus chance plus natural selection). Specifically, he created human beings in his image, thus endowing them with an immortal soul, an essential dignity, and a special position as stewards over creation.

Emphasis mine. The way they follow "we deny creation was merely naturalistic" with "specifically, God created human beings in his image" makes me think they deny humans are a product of evolution.

[Ugly customer]

Thank you all very much for responding. Reading your posts I see I am not the only one who noticed the vagueness of the school´s Creation statement. But at least I have a slightly better understanding of what the statement may say.

Many things indicate that the school teaches Intelligent design which to my understanding is the idea that life on Earth came to be through a divine step by step process that may appear to be naturalistic but in fact is not. Sensible and balanced as that may sound it is still not a valid scientific explanation. This may indicate that they ignore the theory of evolution completely or teach it at arm´s lenth. The two ideas are incmpatible I believe.

The larger issue is the quality if the instruction which is why I posted in the first place. I am still curious how such a foundation ( I mean foundation as a base for your knowledge and understanding of the world, framework if you will ) would inform further studies in biology and earth sciences.

The family are going to visit the school ( It´s not a boarding school) to talk to teachers and headmasters. Hopefully they will get a good understanding of the school´s values and teaching philosophy.

Cheers!

[Deep_Thought]

I think Azrael already mentioned this, but with regards to "merely..." I read that as a veiled commentary on that option. Essentially they are are calling a purely natural process less valuable and less powerful than a divine process (and...despite being an atheist, you can't really argue with that ...). To me it sounds like they are saying that it is ridiculous that you could think that all this *vague hand motion demarcating my body* and all that *vague gestures at some plants out the window* were made by just chance.

As an atheist, I can and most fervently do argue with that. Evolution is incredibly powerful, as judged by the fact it can produce an organism capable of comprehending evolution itself. That's amazing! As to "valuable", it's only less valuable to them because it undermines their current world-view. To the rest of us, the understanding of natural processes is incredibly valuable in itself, and as it gives us the tools to shape our environment, hopefully for the better.

I'll leave you with one of my two favourite quotes - "I'll take the awe of understanding over the awe of ignorance any day" (Douglas Adams).

[DSenette]

just my 2 cents. if someone is worried about their child's (or a that of friend's child) mind being "corrupted by religion", or a religious bent hindering their child's access to valid information, then they should not be considering sending their child to a religious school. period.

if it's a really good school, and they have a really good track record for kids going to really good colleges with really good scholarships, and the parents are NON religious (or athiest, or agnostic, or just not the religion of the school) then they should be smart enough to be able to help their kids see through the stuff they don't agree with at the school.

[Роберт]

The larger issue is the quality if the instruction which is why I posted in the first place. I am still curious how such a foundation ( I mean foundation as a base for your knowledge and understanding of the world, framework if you will ) would inform further studies in biology and earth sciences.

I doubt the understanding of how things got to be the way they are (God made it that way vs. big bang vs. FSM) will make much difference.