You May Be Right, I May Be Crazy

I rode my bike to the post office (1 mile) with 2 kids and two dogs in tow. Then I rode back with a box strapped to my stomach by a sweater (which I thankfully didn't need as it was in the 70's).

Now you may be asking why I did this.

1. I didn't have the keys to the car.
2. I have really been looking forward to this box (it was gifts from Mindware thanks to my Granddad).
3. Exercise is good for you.
4. The dogs need exercise too.
5. As my husband would say, "In this family, we adapt and overcome." (I think he got that from his stint in the Marines.)
6. It was a nice day.

So there you go. Am I crazy or what?

And just in case you were wondering, I got Bendominos and Logic Links. I might report on what I think of them after I get a chance to play them.

Expectations

I was wondering. . .

If parents paid for Bible class (like they pay for dance class or art class), would they still be satisfied with classes that dole out 80% fluff and 20% (on a good day) substance. At least 80% of the time in the 5th grade class that I "assist" in is taken up in crafts and snacks.

Now I am not saying that parents should have to pay for their kids to come to Sunday school or Bible class. What I am saying is that I think most parents have very low expectations of their kids actually learning anything in a church Bible class. They don't put anything into it (no money, time, thought, etc.) and therefor expect very little out of it.

It seems the main focus in the younger years is to keep the little ones out of parents' hair while Mom and Dad go to their own Bible class. In elementary, the focus seems to shift to fun. "We want kids to think God and the Bible is fun." Then in middle school and high school the focus shifts (at least at our church) to "life issues".

Of course, I strongly recommend against relying on church run classes to give your child a solid foundation of biblical knowledge (or even a strong Christian worldview). But shouldn't Bible class focus on the Bible. Have we really bought into the idea that the Bible is boring? Or that our children are too stupid to understand it? Shouldn't our children be challenged to grow spiritually?

The teacher today actually did that for a full 5 minutes. Then apologizing for getting off lesson went back to the written speech that she is to read off the sheet. I was glad that she challenged the students and sad that it happens so infrequently.

P. S. Wickle made me think of something else. It seems to me that most parents have one main priority for a Bible class. That is safety. At least, that seems to be true for the little kids. Not that I am against safety. But shouldn't we give as much attention to learning as to safety?

One Blood

This video is of one of my favorite artists, Lewis Lavoie, working on a mosaic mural called One Blood, Many Nations. It is a painting about how all peoples came from Adam. It is very fascinating to watch Mr. Lavoie work and combine so many images into one giant masterpeice.

Combining Evolution and the Bible

ICR recently had an article about Pres. Bush's belief that you can combine evolution and the Bible because he isn’t a literalist when it comes to reading the Bible, but he thinks “you can learn a lot from it.”

There are so many reasons to trust the Bible. It is accurate historically and scientifically. Archaeologists and scientist are discovering more reasons to believe every week. They just aren't what the MSM wants you to hear so you don't. I will give two brief examples here and move on. In 2007, a cuneiform tablet was found by the British Museum confirming that Nebo-Sarsekim mentioned in Jeremiah 39:3 did indeed bring a gold tribute to King Nebuchadnezzar. The RATE project (which studied helium leak and zircon crystals) gives much evidence for a young earth.

It makes me sad that so many Christians, like Pres. Bush, try to combine the millions of years of death and decay with "and God saw that it was good." This is especially bothersome to me because most leading evolutionist would agree with Stephen J. Gould (a big fan of Darwin) who once wrote:
The radicalism of natural selection lies in its power to dethrone some of the deepest and most traditional comforts of Western thought, particularly the notion that nature’s benevolence, order, and good design, with humans at a sensible summit of power and excellence, prove the existence of an omnipotent and benevolent creator who loves us most of all…. To these beliefs Darwinian natural selection presents the most contrary position imaginable.
Evolutionists understand that the two belief systems are incompatible. So why can't we?

The ICR article further laments,
Bush called himself a “simple president,” implying that he does not feel qualified to speak authoritatively on scientific matters. Few people do, since American science education, under the guise of “separation of church and state,” has for decades hindered students from understanding even basic science by limiting their studies to the evolutionary worldview and forbidding an open exploration of the evidence. This effort to suppress sound science continues as special interest groups pressure the Texas State Board of Education to drop the teaching of evolution’s “strengths and weaknesses” from the state science curriculum requirements, which the Board will review in early 2009.

I truly hope that the Texas State Board of Education has the guts to allow children to learn the "strengths and weaknesses" of the theory of evolution. And if they don't, I hope that it motivates more parents to take charge of their children's education.