How Earth Resembles a Gooey Confection

Ant contributes a link spotted on Neatorama that may upset middle school Earth Science teachers, writing "LiveScience says Earth's simple schematic is not core, mantle, and crust anymore. It is more like the gooey center of a chocolate morsel harboring peanut butter and honey. Inner Earth is far more nuanced than outward appearances would suggest. A new model is proposed in the May 2, 2008, issue of the journal Science."

Comments

They won't even notice

[Anonymous Coward]

I use the gyms at several local schools, and I frequently walk past class projects showing the nine planets of our solar system.

After all, you can't expect teachers to actually keep up with a subject, when it's so much easier to just keep teaching the things everyone 'knows' to be true. I'm amazed they're not still teaching phrenology and spontaneous generation.

Re:They won't even notice

[Emb3rz]

Sir, your post is all over the place.

What various anti-intellectuals do not understand is that Theology is about one set of things and Science is about something else.

You are quite wrong. Christian Theology, the belief in a single sovereign God, having been based on God's written word, is "about" all things pertaining to God's adequacy and right to rule humankind, and therefore includes the origin of everything (and we are an object property of said everything).

Science is "about"

the universe around us, and that includes us as well. This is why science is naturalistic: it is all about natural processes and natural events. Science involves both description, which tells us what has happened, and explanation, which tells us why it happened.

So then, you see, both the Bible (which term I will use rather than Theology, since when referencing theology you must be specific as to whose theology) and Science attempt to tell us What has happened: the physical space of the universe came into existence, followed by the stars and other heavenly bodies, geological formations occurred on earth while sitting in the midst of waters, vegetation began to live 'according to its kind,' creatures of the sea began life, then winged creatures of the sky ('heavens'), then living beasts on the surface of the ground; finally, mankind emerged on the scene, was superior to all of these previous lifeforms and was made out of dust (and Science certainly agrees that humans are composed of many of the same elements as dirt).

They also attempt to tell us Why it happened. The Bible says that God 'created the earth even for it to be inhabited,' or in other words, made the earth as a perfect home to host his creations. Science does not really have an explanation to 'why,' but empirical evidence over thousands of years has proven true the fact that the earth truly is a wonderful home to life on it. Science agrees with this too, in that the placement of the earth relative to the Sun is just right to keep us from freezing and from frying. The combination of gasses that make up our atmosphere are just right to keep everything from being either wholly flammable or toxic to breathe.

Relegating religionists and promoters of intelligent design to this class you deem 'anti-intellectual' really couldn't be more wrong. If one takes the time to discern what the Bible really says regarding creation, they will find it quite stimulating as well as accurate.

Re:It CANNOT be THAT different..

[rasputin465]

from the old model. If it were, it would not match all the old data. We might understand a lot more today, but new theories must not contradict all that factual data of the past! Former scientists were not idiots. Absolutely, but as TFA points out, there were some observations that could not be explained by the old model (like the fact that seismic waves passing through the earth don't always travel at the same speed). Under these circumstances, a new model is justified.