AntiGod education should not be compulsary (even for non wealthy)

Can I inject a small aside here? I apologise to the moderators if they feel this is off-topic, but I think this needs to be said. The ToE doesn't have to be anti-God and I don't feel it's ever been represented as such except by people who believe in the Genesis version of Creation. All the ToE does is provide evidence that is contrary to the Genesis version and in fact there is much evidence against it. However, that doesn't have to remove God as the Creator or say that God IS NOT the Creator. All it means is that it didn't happen the way Genesis describes it. Considering that Genesis gives TWO versions of Creation, one mutually exclusive of the other, I think that demonstrates that you can't take Genesis literally.Creation by God has been suggested to be the generation of the first self-replicating molecule, or the fundamental chemical properties of water, carbon and hydrogen and their interactions, or even the setting in place of the physical laws which govern the Universe. If God had a hand in the creation of any of there then he is still deemed the creator of life, since life would never have evolved given different conditions.14gipper, many scientists who find the ToE the best explanation so far are also believing and practicing Christians and I include myself here. I stated before on this forum that whether God created the world in six days or not doesn't change my view that He sent His Son to die for my sins and that's what being a Christian is all about ie a belief in Christ.I don't want my child taught religious doctrine in Science class because I want him to hear about religion from someone who knows something about religion. Same as I want science taught by someone who knows about science, French by someone who can at least get by in French and mathematics by someone who can properly explain mathematical principles to him. I could happily teach science, but I certainly could not teach religion - I am not an expert, or even moderately competent.

OK, one version of Genesis (Gen 1;19 - 1;27)reports the Creation thus

And the evening and the morning were the fourth day. And God said "Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creatures that hath life, and fowl that may fly above the earth in the open firmament of heaven." And God created great whales, and every living creature that moveth, which the waters brought forth abundantly, after their kind, and every winged fowl after his kind : and God saw that it was good. And God blessed them, saying "Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the waters in the seas, and let the fowl multiply in the earth." And the evening and the morning were the fifth day. And God said "Let the earth bring forth the living creatures after his kind, cattle and creeping thing, and the beast of the earth after his kind" : and it was so. And God made the beast of the earth after his kind, and the cattle after their kind, and everything that creepeth upon the earth after his kind : and God saw that it was good. And God said "Let us make man in our image, after our likeness : and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth." So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.

So according to that, God created all the animals THEN created man to have dominion over them. However, in Genesis 2 it's different

(Gen 2; 7) And the Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life and man became a living soul.

(Gen 2; 18-22) And the Lord God said "It is not good that man should be alone; I will make a helpmeet for him. And out of the ground the Lord God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air; and brought them to Adam to see what he would call them: and whatsoever Adam called every living creature, that was the name thereof. And Adam gave names to all the cattle, and to the fowl of the air, and to every beast of the field: but for Adam there was not an helpmeet for him And the Lord God caused a deep sleep to fall on Adam, and he slept: and he took one of his ribs, and closed up the flesh instead thereof; and the rib, which the Lord God had taken from man, made he a woman and brought her unto the man.

So, Chapter 1 tells us that God made all the plants, then animals then man to take care of the animals, but Chapter 2 tells us that God created plants then man then animals to keep the man company and help him, but they were no use as helpers so woman was created. If we want to take Genesis literally, then these two DIFFERENT ordersfor thecreation of man and animals means that there is an inconsistency. Was it animals then man, or man then animals? It can't be both.This has been covered in another thread, something about "What's the most convincing explanation you've heard for Gen 1 and Gen 2. However, I thought I'd put the full quotes here to save you from hunting for it.

OK, how can plants, then animals then man become plants then man then animals when you look more closely? Sorry, but you're convincing no-one but yourself. Maybe its a common "misconception" only because it's so obvious that the two versions are incompatible, except when you want to assert that Genesis is the literal truth of Creation and therefore have to put inconsistencies like this down to a failure of the reader to understand it properly i.e., gloss over it! What do you believe the order of Creation to be?

So, you're saying that the order of Creation is the order given in Gen 1, that order being plants, animals then man. So how come in Gen 2 that God says

"(Gen 2; 18-22) And the Lord God said "It is not good that man should be alone; I will make a helpmeet for him. And out of the ground the Lord God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air; and brought them to Adam to see what he would call them: and whatsoever Adam called every living creature, that was the name thereof. And Adam gave names to all the cattle, and to the fowl of the air, and to every beast of the field: but for Adam there was not an helpmeet for him"

Now, if the order in Gen 1 is correct how can you reconcile it with the above quote?? If he made the animals to stop Adam being lonely, then how come Gen 1 says the animals were already made before Adam was. Therefore Adam couldn't be "lonely". If Genesis is to believed literally, does that mean that both versions of Genesis are correct, irreconcilable as they are, or that God made a mistake when he said

"It is not good that man should be alone"

I'm well aware that they weren't being created again in Gen 2, they were only created once (if you believe in Creation), therefore there can only be ONE order in which Creation occurred.The only way out of this dilema that I can see is to acknowledge that you can't take every word of Genesis to be correct - it's either one or the other and to be honest, if you want to believe in Creation then that shouldn't stop you, but you can't say that both versions can be mutually exclusive AND BOTH CORRECT.From this position it's an easy step to decide that maybe neither version is correct, just man's attempts to explain where he came from based on his experience with God.

I would humbly suggest that you go off and re-read Genesis again. Your explanation holds no water whatsoever as evidenced by your need to BLATANTLY quote what I said out of context in an attempt to give the impression that I agree with you about Genesis 1 and 2 when it's patently obvious that I TOTALLY DISAGREE WITH YOU!!! For anyonewho missed this, let me quote the relevant parts.You said

The order is in chapter one. In chapter two, we go back and take a closer look.

You then quote me as saying

AND BOTH CORRECT

To which you reply

Of course, as I hope you can see now.

What I actually said was

The only way out of this dilema that I can see is to acknowledge that you can't take every word of Genesis to be correct - it's either one or the other and to be honest, if you want to believe in Creation then that shouldn't stop you, but you can't say that both versions can be mutually exclusive AND BOTH CORRECT.

In using my words in what I can only describe as a deceitful way you have lost any respect I had for you or your position. If this is what you deem to be debating in good faith then I think you have a lot to learn.If you try to produce good evidence to back up your beliefs and "quote" your sources, who is going to believe you now? You've DELIBERATELY misquoted me and you can deliberately misquote anyone or anything else. The sad thing is that you didn't even have the common sense to realise that, since my original quote is still available to whoever wants to read it, your little bit of dishonesty would be glaringly obvious for all to see.Finally, if the Bible is to be taken literally, what happened to "Thou shalt not bear false witness"?If any moderators are looking in can you tell me what the position is when a poster deliberately misquotes someone to give a false impression of what the original poster was saying? To say I'm seething is an understatement of epic proportions!

Thank you for your free advice on prayer, but as a committed and practicing Christian, I can manage fine with only God's help, I don't need your tu'ppence worth.

In your post I can't find a single reference to Jesus as the Saviour, yes, Saviour, that's S..A..V..I..O..U..R, you know the guy God sent to pay for ALL our sins. Where does he fit into this picture you have of a God who turns his back on those that YOU consider not worth saving? Surely if they're good enough for Jesus to save, then you're being more than a tad arrogant in saying that Jesus is wrong, that people aren't worth saving?As somebody above said, the God you describe bears no resemblance to the loving God of the New Testament that I know, that millions know. Oh, by the way, I'm not judging you, I'm just commenting. You can't begin to understand why I am soooooo glad that your "version" of God won't be taught to my child in science class and if for a minute I thought he would be taught about your God in a religious education class, I would withdraw him from it on the basis that I don't want him brought up to be an arrogant bigot. Nuff said!