 |
Open Theism Discussion Board > Public Forums > Theological Q&A > (No Subject)
| Forum Quick Jump
|
| 
0CT0R0K
Registered Member
Date Joined Dec 2002
Total Posts : 50
| Posted 6/24/2003 5:19 AM (GMT -6) |   | taken from another livejournal religious debate community. what do you guys think about the theory of evolution? or more importantly how it's displayed in the below article:
quote:
I believe there is some misunderstanding as to what evolutionary theory means.
Scientific American has some very good information on the subject for those who do not understand when a scientist calls evolution a theory.
Many people learned in elementary school that a theory falls in the middle of a hierarchy of certainty--above a mere hypothesis but below a law. Scientists do not use the terms that way, however. According to the National Academy of Sciences (NAS), a scientific theory is "a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that can incorporate facts, laws, inferences, and tested hypotheses." No amount of validation changes a theory into a law, which is a descriptive generalization about nature. So when scientists talk about the theory of evolution--or the atomic theory or the theory of relativity, for that matter--they are not expressing reservations about its truth.
In addition to the theory of evolution, meaning the idea of descent with modification, one may also speak of the fact of evolution. The NAS defines a fact as "an observation that has been repeatedly confirmed and for all practical purposes is accepted as 'true.'" The fossil record and abundant other evidence testify that organisms have evolved through time. Although no one observed those transformations, the indirect evidence is clear, unambiguous and compelling.
All sciences frequently rely on indirect evidence. Physicists cannot see subatomic particles directly, for instance, so they verify their existence by watching for telltale tracks that the particles leave in cloud chambers. The absence of direct observation does not make physicists' conclusions less certain.
No evidence suggests that evolution is losing adherents. Pick up any issue of a peer-reviewed biological journal, and you will find articles that support and extend evolutionary studies or that embrace evolution as a fundamental concept.
Conversely, serious scientific publications disputing evolution are all but nonexistent. In the mid-1990s George W. Gilchrist of the University of Washington surveyed thousands of journals in the primary literature, seeking articles on intelligent design or creation science. Among those hundreds of thousands of scientific reports, he found none. In the past two years, surveys done independently by Barbara Forrest of Southeastern Louisiana University and Lawrence M. Krauss of Case Western Reserve University have been similarly fruitless.
Creationists retort that a closed-minded scientific community rejects their evidence. Yet according to the editors of Nature, Science and other leading journals, few antievolution manuscripts are even submitted. Some antievolution authors have published papers in serious journals. Those papers, however, rarely attack evolution directly or advance creationist arguments; at best, they identify certain evolutionary problems as unsolved and difficult (which no one disputes). In short, creationists are not giving the scientific world good reason to take them seriously.
Evolutionary biologists passionately debate diverse topics: how speciation happens, the rates of evolutionary change, the ancestral relationships of birds and dinosaurs, whether Neandertals were a species apart from modern humans, and much more. These disputes are like those found in all other branches of science. Acceptance of evolution as a factual occurrence and a guiding principle is nonetheless universal in biology.
any thoughts?
 | | Back to Top | | |
 |
Laplace
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2003
Total Posts : 138
| Posted 6/24/2003 9:42 AM (GMT -6) | | Octorok,
Good article snippet. Not too long, and to the point.
My perspective on the theory of evolution is just that, it's a theory. It relies almost exclusively on circumstantial evidence, which in and of itself should not be dismissed, but looked in context to everything else.
Those that claim evolution is more credible than creation simply because it is more "scientific" do not want to admit that throughout history, so-called "scientists" have been wrong. Sometimes dead wrong. And we aren't talking religious fanatics here. Many of these ideas were accepted as mainstream fact. Here are but a few of many:
- Aristotlian physics (if an object is moving, there must be a force acting on it. Newton showed otherwise)
- Humor fluids in the body (heck, why not bloodletting, that theory was implemented up until the 19th century)
- Planet rotation due to ether
- Heavier than air flight
- Nuclear power
- Infravision technology
Even within the field of evolution, the evolutionists are constantly revising their theories. First it was, "Evolution was very gradual between changes in species". Then it was, "Changes of species occured very quickly" (a nice reason once they didn't find fossils which confirmed earlier theories). For some reason, in the field of evolution, they start out with a conclusion and then do "data fitting" to make the hypothesis work rather than taking the data first, and then arriving at a conclusion.
I like what person said on a related post on this board. "When is the last time you saw a retraction of headline in the newspaper about scientific discoveries?" How often do you see a scientist admitting, "Oops, I was wrong". Not too often.
And for those Christians who believe that somehow evolution can "work into the Bible", I don't claim they aren't Christians, but I wonder why they feel so compelled to reconcile claims of science with claims of the Bible. If they trust the science more, then why are they even Christians? Science would dispute things such as the parting of seas, the blind receiving sight, and the raising of the dead (our fundamental belief). I believe that we as a society have elevated our scientists and professors to the level of priests. Where we say, "Well, they are more educated than we are so what they say MUST be true". As it has been shown, even are smartest minds can be wrong.
Why the stubborness then to scrutinize the evidence and objections if the theory of evolution is simply based upon an faith-based fact of "There is no God" or "We were not 'created' save through chance"? Because bluntly, we as humans don't like the idea that we have to answer to someone higher than ourselves. If evolution were largely dismissed and creation was a worldwide accepted idea as it was before Darwin, then we would have to think about things like accountability (to some god, or maybe power, at least something), and begin to define our behavior in terms of right and wrong rather than just evolutionary norms we are born with and we can't help ourselves. What I of course wonder is if most scientists believe in evolution, and would then conclude there is no God, why they live the way they do. They don't seem to live out the practical implications of their theory. Survival of fittest: Advocating disposal for the weak and helpless (why help a starving child in Africa when it's probable they won't contribute at all to society?). Gene distribution: Advocating polygamy and heck, why not rape? No life after death? Well then, since nothing will ultimately matter because according to scientific probability mankind will one day be extinct, what's the difference to have morals if they are inconvenient to someone?
I consider myself a truth-seeker, and realize that what I believe personally in terms of religion may be wrong. It is a faith, but not a blind one. Given how much skepticism and unequal treatment of Christian apologetics simply because it's "religious" it's funny how scientists claim that both are different issues (science and religion). But by strict definition, both are faiths. Both have evidences to present. And both have implications on how we should live. The question before us now is, "Which would you rather hedge your bets on? One which says this debate won't even matter because you or anyone else won't even remember it because they are dead, or one which speaks of our eternal existence and a God who wishes us to trust Him with that?"
"Balance in all things" - Dak'kon, Planescape Torment | | Back to Top | | |
|
Laika
Registered Member
Date Joined Mar 2003
Total Posts : 2433
| Posted 6/24/2003 12:48 PM (GMT -6) | | Laplace
quote:
Those that claim evolution is more credible than creation simply because it is more "scientific" do not want to admit that throughout history, so-called "scientists" have been wrong. Sometimes dead wrong. And we aren't talking religious fanatics here. Many of these ideas were accepted as mainstream fact. Here are but a few of many:
- Aristotlian physics (if an object is moving, there must be a force acting on it. Newton showed otherwise)
- Humor fluids in the body (heck, why not bloodletting, that theory was implemented up until the 19th century)
- Planet rotation due to ether
- Heavier than air flight
- Nuclear power
- Infravision technology
You're not enjoying the benefits of cold fusion like the rest of us? 
 | | Back to Top | | |
|
scott_jorgenson
Registered Member
Date Joined Dec 2002
Total Posts : 271
| Posted 6/24/2003 1:46 PM (GMT -6) | | Laplace,
Let me say in advance that I appreciate the thought you put into your response, and especially the ground you covered.
But may I humbly suggest that your response indicates a number of points of confusion in your mind regarding science in general, evolution in particular, and their relationship with Christianity and creation in particular. Rather than go into depth on any one point, I'll try to broadly respond to all of them.
quote:
My perspective on the theory of evolution is just that, it's a theory.
In scientific parlance (as you saw defined in the original poster's quote from the NAS), it is a theory. In common parlance, where theory means "a guess with pretty even chances of being right or wrong", it is no more a theory than general relativity or plate tectonics.
quote:
It relies almost exclusively on circumstantial evidence, which in and of itself should not be dismissed, but looked in context to everything else.
Circumstantial evidence is a legal term; I'll take it you mean evidences besides direct eyewitness observation. Evolutionary theory is indeed largely based on such evidences, but so too is a good 50% or more of all the sciences, including much of geology, almost all of astronomy, much of physics, etc. Well-established conclusions which few people challenge today, such as that smoking is a cause of cancer or the HIV virus is the cause of AIDS, are all based on indirect evidences. Indirect observation is no less reliable for being indirect.
quote:
Those that claim evolution is more credible than creation simply because it is more "scientific" do not want to admit that throughout history, so-called "scientists" have been wrong. Sometimes dead wrong. And we aren't talking religious fanatics here. Many of these ideas were accepted as mainstream fact. Here are but a few of many:
...
None of the examples listed are comparable to the theory of evolution being so radically wrong as to be completely off-the-mark. Yet that is the degree of "wrongness" that would be required in order for, say, so-called "young-earth creationism" to be validated (young-earth creationism being the acceptance of a literal historical Genesis 1-11 in all its details).
Now, I'm not making the assumption that young-earth creationism is your view. But it is probably the most common anti-evolution view, so I might as well speak to it. And when most young-earth creationists consider "evolution" to be wrong, they have much more in mind than just thus-and-such particular evolutionary pathway to thus-and-such family of organisms being falsified. In my experience, they rather have in mind overthrow of the whole package that is at-odds with a literal historical reading of Genesis 1-11: big bang, billions of years, geological epochs, abiogenesis, progressive branching appearance of life including man, death from the beginning, no global flood, etc. Never in the history of science has anything happened remotely comparable to the overthrow of mainstream science that this typical scenario contemplates.
quote:
Even within the field of evolution, the evolutionists are constantly revising their theories. First it was, "Evolution was very gradual between changes in species". Then it was, "Changes of species occured very quickly" (a nice reason once they didn't find fossils which confirmed earlier theories). For some reason, in the field of evolution, they start out with a conclusion and then do "data fitting" to make the hypothesis work rather than taking the data first, and then arriving at a conclusion.
This is an unfair characterization of the scientific community at work. Theory revision within evolutionary science has (a) never been as radical as these statements suggest, (b) has been subject to the same overall professional standards of the rest of science, and (c) is the sign of a healthy, progressing body of knowledge (all other fields in science have experienced similar histories, revisions and debates, none of which are a sign of weakness but rather of progress).
quote:
I like what person said on a related post on this board. "When is the last time you saw a retraction of headline in the newspaper about scientific discoveries?" How often do you see a scientist admitting, "Oops, I was wrong". Not too often.
Actually it happens rather often, if only because of the mounting weight of evidence and the very-critical professional pressure from colleagues. We should blame the popular press for not keeping up.
quote:
And for those Christians who believe that somehow evolution can "work into the Bible", I don't claim they aren't Christians, but I wonder why they feel so compelled to reconcile claims of science with claims of the Bible. If they trust the science more, then why are they even Christians? Science would dispute things such as the parting of seas, the blind receiving sight, and the raising of the dead (our fundamental belief).
Christians accept evolution for the same reason they accept other bodies of science: because the scientific method both is reasonable on a-priori grounds (and in fact congruent with Christian theism), and has a proven track record (as evidenced from technology) when applied within its bounds. Those bounds are critical investigation of publicly observable phenomena, including historical events large enough to have left traces behind, such as prehistory in broad-brush strokes.
The Resurrection and many other miracles recounted in the Bible are not particularly investigable scientifically, because they would have left behind inadequate evidence for examination. Consequently science qua science is mute on these. It certainly does not deny them on apriori naturalistic grounds - though certainly some adherents of philosophical materialism would be likely to claim otherwise. Contrast this with the global Noahic flood, an event large enough to have left copious evidence behind, had it happened. Science only stands in opposition to certain historical events like that one, not because it asserts they could not have literally happened, but because it asserts the copious available evidence shows they did not literally happen.
As for how we as Christians can understand biblical portrayal of such events upon which mainstream science casts doubt as far as goes their literal historicity: there are two broad approaches (concordist and non-historical), each of which has numerous variants, some mutually-exclusive, some complementary. Most of these are, I believe, biblically faithful and rational in principle. My preferred approach is non-historical: in particular, literary and accommodationist.
quote:
I believe that we as a society have elevated our scientists and professors to the level of priests. Where we say, "Well, they are more educated than we are so what they say MUST be true". As it has been shown, even are smartest minds can be wrong.
Why the stubborness then to scrutinize the evidence and objections if the theory of evolution is simply based upon an faith-based fact of "There is no God" or "We were not 'created' save through chance"? Because bluntly, we as humans don't like the idea that we have to answer to someone higher than ourselves. If evolution were largely dismissed and creation was a worldwide accepted idea as it was before Darwin, then we would have to think about things like accountability (to some god, or maybe power, at least something), and begin to define our behavior in terms of right and wrong rather than just evolutionary norms we are born with and we can't help ourselves.
The fact that there are many Christians (and other theists worldwide) who accept evolution falsifies the idea that evolutionary science is simply a matter of presuppositions. I am a Christian; my presuppositions are to acknowledge God the creator; yet I acknowledge evolution as the creative method. As have millions of other Christians, today and throughout the history of the sciences. Certainly there are philosophical materialists who like to seize-upon evolution as justification for their philosophy, but evolutionary science is not based upon their presuppositions but upon the same scientific/critical method that underpins all other science, and indeed daily life itself.
quote:
What I of course wonder is if most scientists believe in evolution, and would then conclude there is no God, why they live the way they do. They don't seem to live out the practical implications of their theory. Survival of fittest: Advocating disposal for the weak and helpless (why help a starving child in Africa when it's probable they won't contribute at all to society?). Gene distribution: Advocating polygamy and heck, why not rape? No life after death? Well then, since nothing will ultimately matter because according to scientific probability mankind will one day be extinct, what's the difference to have morals if they are inconvenient to someone?
Evolution, like any other body of science, does not inherently imply morality. It neither affirms nor refutes any moral system. That's not to say that we can't try to draw rationale for one moral system or another from evolutionary science, but then we are doing philosophy, not science. In the same way, the vastness and impersonality of the universe - the vastness of space and multitude of galaxies - can be exploited, by those philosophically inclined, as a justification for moralities emphasizing the worthless and insignificance of human life (or indeed of anything on this little planet). Yet this is philosophy at work, not astronomy; and Christians by-and-large are not rejecting astronomy because of it.
quote:
I consider myself a truth-seeker, and realize that what I believe personally in terms of religion may be wrong. It is a faith, but not a blind one. Given how much skepticism and unequal treatment of Christian apologetics simply because it's "religious" it's funny how scientists claim that both are different issues (science and religion). But by strict definition, both are faiths.
Yet it must be acknowledged that Christian faith is far more particular than the faith that underpins science - which is basically the same general faith principles of "the world is real", "things operate by regular cause-and-effect", etc, as everyone uses in daily life. Christian faith, with its insistence, not just on God but the historical particulars of Jesus, is a step beyond that. The two faith systems really aren't comparable in degree.
quote:
Both have evidences to present. And both have implications on how we should live. The question before us now is, "Which would you rather hedge your bets on? One which says this debate won't even matter because you or anyone else won't even remember it because they are dead, or one which speaks of our eternal existence and a God who wishes us to trust Him with that?"
This is Pascal's Wager, a philosophical issue. I tend to agree, but it is all orthogonal to the issue of the validity of evolution as science and how it is compatible with our faith.
Thanks for all of your thoughts and I hope you will find mine helpful as well.
Best regards,
Scott
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Laplace
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2003
Total Posts : 138
| Posted 6/25/2003 6:24 AM (GMT -6) | | scott,
Thanks for the reply. I know we've dueled before on the subject but I'm glad we can keep it civil.
First, you seem to be stating the following lines of argument regarding anti-evolutionary ideas:
Premise: Evolution as mainly understood (species change) is false
Alternative: The diverse species were created and not evolved.
Premise: The Bible claims that the earth was created in with humans within 7 days.
Problem: Circumstantial evidence tends to say that the earth (universe, etc) was NOT created in 7 days, and tends to support the evolutionary theory.
Conclusion: Either the conclusion regarding the evidence is incorrect (can be explained by other means), or the Bible's claims are wrong.
For myself, if you were to ask me if I believed in the "young earth" (~6,000 years old) theory with a literal 7 days, "old earth" theory (God created the earth already "old") or the days were symbolic (meaning not seven 24hr periods), or the "old earth" using man's definition of evolution, I would automatically exclude the last hypothesis, and say that either of the first two would work for me (I do slant towards the "old earth" theory that each day was not 24 hours long).
The main reason though I completely reject the species evolution theory is because it gives no distinction to humans and lumps them together with animals.
"Then God said, 'Let us make man in our image, in our likeness, and let them rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air, over the livestock, over all the earth, and over all the creatures that move along the ground.'
So God created man in his own image,
in the image of God he created him;
male and female he created them
(Genesis 1:26-27)
This first states clearly that man is separate from the animals, and that man was created in God's image, not animals. Things begin to get sticky then when evolutionary theory states that there have been many iterations of "man" (Cro-Magnon's, Neanderthals, etc.). Ok, which one of these was first considered "man" that God was talking about? Certainly not a chimpanzee. I don't know if you take Adam and Eve literally as 2 people, or simply a symbol of humanity (Same goes for Noah and the ark. The Bible clearly states that only 8 people survived and had to re-populate humanity), but as one would ask another who happens to claim a zygote is not a "true person" either, at what point then does the eternal soul enter?
One thing that separates us from animals is civilization. Interesting that although there abounds many theories (more like guesses) about how many of our conventions came into being (structured language, wearing of clothing for modesty, etc.) no one to my knowledge has yet been able to completely bridge the gap between animal behavior and human behavior (not to say that animals cannot exhibit human behavior, but nearly to the extent that we have them. Again, another so called "magic jump").
As for misrepresenting evolutionists that they are not "open minded", I can say with confidence that this has been the case, both within evolutionary science as well as other sciences.
You must be aware with the famous "Peppered Moth" controversy. Using circumstantial evidence with the rise/decline of dark/light colored moths and correlating it with industrial pollution, we see natural selection in action. Of course, we've also heard of the objections that Dr. Kettlewell intentionally "placed" moths on tree trunks (where they normally do not congregate) and photographed them to prove his point and deceive the masses.
What I'm pointing out here is not that the study is bunk, or the claims are not true regarding British moths, but that you almost NEVER hear of these objections in the classrooms unless someone brings them up. In just about every science textbook I've read, I've never seen words to the effect of, "Now some question this theory because of these reasons." The whole "theory" aspect of evolution is a farce in mainstream science. It IS accepted as fact and anyone who says otherwise is branded "uneducated with a religious agenda".
As someone with a Masters in Statistics, I am well aware that "correlation does not equal causation". Unfortunately, many of the sciences rely IMO too heavily on this to reach conclusions. Now I don't claim that many scientists "fudge" data intentionally, but you have to be honest they aren't too anxious to bring up possible holes either, especially when grants and prestige are involved. You read these journals in depth and see how their experiments were run and when I see the words "we assume that..." my immediate reaction is, "That's a pretty big assumption".
I remember reading an issue in Scientific American and was astounded that they could give an entire timeline of the Universe from its inception to its eventual destruction (with no mention to any restaurants at the edge). They way it was worded, it touted this is what WILL happen, not may.
You claim that evolutionary science (or evolutionary biology) has not radically changed since the times of Darwin's first conjecture. Then why in an issue of Time magazine about decade ago had the prominent headline "Surprise, everything you've thought about dinosaurs is wrong". The article itself then talked about how some species were warm-blooded, they did have a more communal lifestyle, etc. How they could make these sure-fire conclusions just from fossils is beyond me. But I never remember a subsequent issues saying, "Surprise, everything we said in that prior issue about dinosaurs is wrong". I think you see my point. As you say, part of it is media sensationalism, but all cannot be blamed on such.
Finally, you claim that scientific fact does not imply morality. I agree that it does not imply morality meaning it "dictates" morality to us, but science does AFFECT our views and ultimately our decisions in as much as evidence in a courtroom affects our verdict.
Take for example our attitudes towards sex. A major argument for promiscuity nowadays is, "we're just animals, so that urge for sex is simply a primal desire like for food or water. Therefore, why should it be immoral for consenting adults (at least we still have the decency to say "adults")?"
Since people's have adopted the notion that people are NOT set apart from animals (no doubt encouraged by evolution), it gives them less incentive to view sex as something sacred within the contexts of marriage (I love one theory regarding how marriage came to being. It basically said women struck a deal with men saying that they would be agree to be periodically raped by a man if he would be protect her against being raped by others). Even attitudes towards things like rape are beginning to wane citing duck gang rapes or that insect which uses a special "catcher" which serves only to grab and hold a female (forget the species). What about abortion, birth control, embryotic research, etc.?
In conclusion scott, I agree that we should examine all evidence available to us. My concern for Christian evolutionists though is that they are placing more faith in man's reasoning and conclusions than what the Bible says (which given man's tract record of revisions, wonder if what I accept as true today in science will be true tomorrow). Let me just ask you a one question then:
"Do you believe that Jesus Christ came to earth as a man, died, was buried, and 3 days later rose from the dead?"
If the answer is "Yes", then couldn't God create an earth through ways and means we don't understand completely? If the answer is "No", then why bother being a Christian? (1 Cor 15:12-19).
Honestly I don't think this issue is worth too much fighting over if you are in fact a Christian. I believe everyone (including myself) has some heresy in them regarding their doctrinal viewpoints. What's important is your heart. I trust God with what the Bible says because I know that I do not and cannot know everything. I hope that you will too.
"Where were you when I laid the earth's foundation? Tell me, if you understand." (God speaking) - Job 38:4
"Balance in all things" - Dak'kon, Planescape Torment
Edited by - Laplace on 06/25/2003 1:41:35 PM | | Back to Top | | |
|
scott_jorgenson
Registered Member
Date Joined Dec 2002
Total Posts : 271
| Posted 6/25/2003 9:40 AM (GMT -6) | | Laplace,
Actually I don't recall discussing with you before, unless your username has changed. Sorry if I have a short memory :-)
Anyway, you pitch the situation as being one of trusting science or trusting the Bible, trusting man or trusting God. Yet it is not at all clear that what the Bible has to say about prehistory is meant by God to be literally historical.
First, internal textual evidence alone suggests that modern historical chronicle is not the literary genre being employed in Genesis 2-11, let alone Genesis 1. For example, in Genesis 2-3, the emphasis on etiology, the wordplays and the anthropomorphisms alone are more suggestive of legend (a word at which our modern mind recoils, I know, but a word which is not in itself pejorative). As another example, in Genesis 1 the liturgical repetition, framework/structure of the 6 days, and progressive development toward climax are also not characteristic of modern historical chronicle. This has been recognized throughout church history, at least with respect to Genesis 1 and albeit as a minority view (see Augustine, for example).
Second, external evidence from science and history, having nothing to do with evolution and accepted by all moderns, suggests, when compared with these early Genesis narratives, that those narratives are expressed in terms of, indeed are accommodated to, the science of the day and do not seek to concord with scientific reality at all.
For example, all the available scientific and historical evidence shows that the ancient near-eastern cultural context believed in a cosmology very different than the one we accept today. In the ancient near eastern cosmology, there is no planet Earth or outer space as we know them. There is only dry land, spread out flat upon the waters of the sea on which it floats. Beneath the land and its surrounding surface waters of the sea is the great deep (Hebrew tehom) - primordial ocean that extends downward forever. And above the land and its surrounding waters are the winds and clouds, capped by the sky - a solid ceiling or dome over the world in which the sun, moon, and stars drift, and above which is more of the deep (the "waters above"). Thus the world is a bubble in the deep, so to speak - a bubble of sky arched over winds, clouds, and dry land. This is the ancient cosmology of the Egyptians, Assyrians and Babylonians - the military, scientific, technological and cultural super-powers of the time to which the Genesis accounts date. And it is the same cosmology we find reflected, again and again, in the Bible's references to land, sea, sky, and waters below and above, not just in Genesis but also in Job, Isaiah, Psalms, etc. And there are other examples of this sort of factually-errant thing here and there throughout the Bible (eg, cud-chewing rabbits in Leviticus) which falsify the notion of total factual inerrancy so cherished by American conservative evangelicals today.
So clearly then through the Bible God has no interest in making factual claims for their own sake regarding the nature of the physical world, the details of geography or history, etc. Yet this should come as no surprise to us, for it is clear that the Bible teaches, as such, neither engineering nor mathematics nor medicine nor economics nor any of a host of other secular things. I don't mean that the Bible doesn't occasionally allude to these things, taking them up for pedagogical reasons so as to instruct in faith and practice. But that is the extent and purpose to which it uses them: as vehicles for making its teachings in faith and practice most universally accessible to peoples of all ages, cultures and times.
This is not a low view of scripture but one which honors its purpose and authority in the plainest way - through literal historical/grammatical hermeneutics. To say it is equivalent to saying "the bible is just wrong in these matters of fact" is a gross caricature. Neither is this view a slippery slope, for it is not based on apriori rejection of biblical authority or miracle but considered, case-by-case literal historical/grammatical interpretation vis-a-vis only the best-confirmed extrabiblical evidences (which certainly the evidences establishing modern cosmology and rabbit biology are).
Anyway, this argument established, it is plain to see that if the Bible does not seek to teach matter-of-fact science in the areas of cosmology and so forth, but rather takes those up only pedagogically - accommodating them to the cultural understanding of the time in pursuit of teaching truth that eternally matters in a way that is maximally accessible - then such too can readily be the case when the Bible's apparent claims on prehistory come into conflict with very well-established science.
For more on this way of understanding science and the Bible in light of one another, see work by Paul Seely and Conrad Hyers (for example, any of Seely's Westminster Theological Journal papers, or Hyers' book The Meaning of Creation: Genesis and Modern Science). I know you addressed other comments in my reply - for example, regarding moral claims which buttress themselves with science, and regarding humankind's separateness from the rest of the animal kingdom. But I've chosen to focus on the idea of "evolution vs. the Bible" instead, since in my experience the idea that they are necessarily in conflict is really the wellspring of this whole controversy.
Scott
PS. I should say I recognize that the approach I outlined above essentially denies the formally-articulated doctrine of "biblical inerrancy" - ie total accuracy in every matter-of-fact upon which the Bible touches, as worked-out by people like Warfield and Hodge in the 19th century, or as affirmed by the Chicago Statement. If you are an adherent of this extra-biblical (IMO) doctrine, my reasoning above will not make much headway, I know (though note that many Christians reject inerrancy in this sense as extrabiblical - such as C. S. Lewis, a particularly ironic example due to his devoted fanhood within conservative evangelicalism - so I am not alone or heterodox in doing so). In any event, you should be aware that even within the fold of inerrancy, there are concordist approaches for "harmonizing" the bible with science, even evolution. I don't find them convincing personally, as I think they subvert the historical/grammatical meaning of the Bible too much in favor of what I consider inerrancy "bibliolatry", but you may find them useful. See Glenn Morton's work for an example.
PPS. Yes, I affirm the historicity of Jesus, fully god and fully man, who taught and died and was resurrected so that God might offer salvation to those who believe. Actually most Christian denominations are comfortable with what I argue above and consider it quite compatible with orthodoxy; only conservative evangelicals and fundamentalists (largely American) have a problem with it. | | Back to Top | | |
|
Starkman
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2001
Total Posts : 1747
| Posted 6/25/2003 4:42 PM (GMT -6) | | Scott,
quote:
In scientific parlance (as you saw defined in the original poster's quote from the NAS), it is a theory. In common parlance, where theory means "a guess with pretty even chances of being right or wrong", it is no more a theory than general relativity or plate tectonics.
I would say that evolution is not a theory but a hypothesis. It is guesswork. It is not, however (in my opinion), able to carry the weight of your statement: "a guess with pretty even chances of being right or wrong." There simply is no evidence that man evolved, not a bone to be found, not an example to be had. And similarities between man and other species are just those: similarities. But there's plenty of evidence--even if it is not seen--that general relativity is substantial. The disputes over the theory of relativity are quite minimal compared with the disputes that plague evolution (or at least did, at one time.)
quote:
This is an unfair characterization of the scientific community at work. Theory revision within evolutionary science has (a) never been as radical as these statements suggest, (b) has been subject to the same overall professional standards of the rest of science, and (c) is the sign of a healthy, progressing body of knowledge (all other fields in science have experienced similar histories, revisions and debates, none of which are a sign of weakness but rather of progress).
Yes, but very few scientific theories have gone through the almost flat-plain-lies that anthropologists have attempted in trying to contruct man's evolution from a pig's tooth or one of the many other "revisions." I mean, you'd agree, wouldn't you, that discovering that the world didn't center around the earth is one thing, but attempts to constantly attribute the latest skull-finding to man evolving is another, wouldn't you? It got pretty ridiculous there for a while, and still does sometimes. It's always, "The Missing Link Found," or something like that. Not, "Hmm, let's be sure to really examine this find and see if it tells us what it is rather than we telling it what it is."
quote:
Christians accept evolution for the same reason they accept other bodies of science: because the scientific method both is reasonable on a-priori grounds (and in fact congruent with Christian theism), and has a proven track record (as evidenced from technology) when applied within its bounds. Those bounds are critical investigation of publicly observable phenomena, including historical events large enough to have left traces behind, such as prehistory in broad-brush strokes.
What publically obsverable phenomena, though? You mean eyewitness accounts of evolution taking place? Or do you mean how a hat can fossilize in a matter of a few short years, or a volcano can erupt leaving evidence that things took a long, long time when in fact they did't. Or just what an evolutionist scientist says about the evidence as he sees it from his a-priori and presuppositional perspective?
I'm not saying that there aren't some stunning discoveries and some really remarkable findings that should cause (Christians in particular) to objectively seek out answers in regard to this issue, but it's just not so cut-and-dry that the evidence clearly supports evolution, and all those creation scientists ... well, they're just wrong.
quote:
The fact that there are many Christians (and other theists worldwide) who accept evolution falsifies the idea that evolutionary science is simply a matter of presuppositions. I am a Christian; my presuppositions are to acknowledge God the creator; yet I acknowledge evolution as the creative method. As have millions of other Christians, today and throughout the history of the sciences. Certainly
Have you studied the evidence for creation equally in time and in objectivity as you have the evidence in favor for evolution? I can't say that I have; I've read only a little on creationism and evolution. I'm just wondering how extensive your reading is of the creationist side, that's all. I mean, are all these Ph.Ds and researchers on the creation side just plain wrong?
quote:
Certainly there are philosophical materialists who like to seize-upon evolution as justification for their philosophy, but evolutionary science is not based upon their presuppositions but upon the same scientific/critical method that underpins all other science, and indeed daily life itself.
Scott, this may not be so for you, but you can't possibly make a universal statement about scientists, philosophers and evolutionists like this. It's contradictory to what several evolutionists have plainly stated: that there's quite a bit of a priori and presupposition in their approach to the field. Sheesh, one expects there to be to some degree. (Several quotes Sean gave in your guy's discussion some time back were straight from evolutionists who plainly stated that there was a lot of presupposition. I can't even begin to remember the stuff!!!)
quote:
First, internal textual evidence alone suggests that modern historical chronicle is not the literary genre being employed in Genesis 2-11, let alone Genesis 1. For example, in Genesis 2-3, the emphasis on etiology, the wordplays and the anthropomorphisms alone are more suggestive of legend (a word at which our modern mind recoils, I know, but a word which is not in itself pejorative). As another example, in Genesis 1 the liturgical repetition, framework/structure of the 6 days, and progressive development toward climax are also not characteristic of modern historical chronicle. This has been recognized throughout church history, at least with respect to Genesis 1 and albeit as a minority view (see Augustine, for example).
An opinion some have held, Scott. Someone's idea that poetry, anthropomorphisms, myth (in that it really didn't happen at all like the account says it id, if even closely at all), legend (wether used in the classical or traditional sense), etc., is a better explanation than the the clear, concise language the author wrote down. I mean, let's be fair about what's really being said here (by most evolutionist's interpretations of the Bible, and some non-evolutionists, too): the facts are is science and astronomy SEEMINGLY do not come into harmony with how the creation account relates the events: for in six days the Lord made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them."
Evolutionists can't reconcile the clear record with science and evolution thinking, so they've approached the interpretation of the creation account quite liberally. Okay, fine. Trying to work through issues in Scripture is one thing, but let's be fair and at least admit that this is WHY it's being worked out. There wouldn't be one iota of reason for the majority of readers to interpret Genesis 1-2 any other way than in the plain language--garnished in poetry or not--if there were never the sciences of today that have caused many to adhere to Evolution (and hey, I'm not against science, by no means). And again, I can respect that. I can't respect, however, the dishonesty--and I'm definitely not saying you're in this camp Scott, not at all--that doesn't admit: "Hey, I can't believe the simple Biblical account because of the scientific evidence." That's a respectable statement.
quote:
Second, external evidence from science and history, having nothing to do with evolution and accepted by all moderns, suggests, when compared with these early Genesis narratives, that those narratives are expressed in terms of, indeed are accommodated to, the science of the day and do not seek to concord with scientific reality at all.
Maybe the author just wrote down the way it happened. Couldn't have cared less about science, his own opinions, nearby neigbors' cosmology, etc. Just wrote down what God said. I mean, isn't that possible (mistakes and all, as some hold about the account)?
quote:
So clearly then through the Bible God has no interest in making factual claims for their own sake regarding the nature of the physical world, the details of geography or history, etc. Yet this should come as no surprise to us, for it is clear that the Bible teaches, as such, neither engineering nor mathematics nor medicine nor economics nor any of a host of other secular things. I don't mean that the Bible doesn't occasionally allude to these things, taking them up for pedagogical reasons so as to instruct in faith and practice. But that is the extent and purpose to which it uses them: as vehicles for making its teachings in faith and practice most universally accessible to peoples of all ages, cultures and times.
I concure. However, if the Bible--presumably God having had SOMETHING to say about its content and composition--is going to use something like, say, the mythological (and I mean that word in the "it didn't happen quite the way it sounds") creation account to teach about God, man, and relationship between God and man, we are quite better off without its record of creation. Who needs nearby cosmology concepts? What good is it? What do I care. Hek, I can make up, or create based upon my own culture and surrounging cosmology, an account of creation and mankind too! It's just not like the rest of Scripture, though, to use myth and legend to convey truth. Truth is truth, period. I mean, it's like trying to say that the author(s) of Daniel and the authors of the Chronicles made up the stuff well after the events to give Isreal hope. Who needs that!
[quote]And there are other examples of this sort of factually-errant thing here and there throughout the Bible (eg, cud-chewing rabbits in Leviticus) ... To say it is equivalent to saying "the bible is just wrong in these matters of fact" is a gross caricature.[quote]
But ... you just did say the Bible was wrong. Please, just say it! And here again, I'll lay ten-to-one odds that if I did enough research, I'd find good, solid answers to the rabbit-cud thing. Either the passage is right or it's wrong. If you (and anyone else) doesn't believe it's right, then just say it that way. We must stop this dancing around the issue: some people do not believe in the Bible's trust-worthiness or inerrancy because they believe it has wrong information. Not "it's the way they thought in that culture," or "this is the surrounding cosmology being used as legend ..." No, let's just say it as it's being meant to be understood: the Bible is wrong in this (rabbit-cud) area, period. This is what folk are really saying. I'll respect the honesty of someone who's saying, "Man, I can't reconcile the concept of Biblical inerrancy with this rabbit-chewing-the-cud stuff." Fine. Struggle on, my good man. But let's not dance around the issue by saying anything but what is thought to be the reason for the discrepancy: that being the Bible is wrong here.
Okay, I'm done. I finish by saying, Scott, that you are quite honest and true to what you believe. And, you've done your homework (at least, until you state otherwise, that you've read well on the creation side of things and can tell us why they are so wrong). I can't say that I know much about evolution. Hek, I forget it almost as fast as I read it. (If you're into theology, I'm, like, gettin' into the book of Hebrews on another thread. Toss in a bone, dude! I can remember what the hek I've read in THAT book!)
For the reality of it all,
Starkman
Post Script: I can see how my post could be, and probably will be, interpreted as "Well, he just doesn't really understand "Myth" and "Legend," and he's very narrow in his thinking about the way it really is (about how the creation account, evolution and science are). But that's okay, because my main points are that honesty is the best policy, and equal time and respect to both sides is necessary. I'm a young-earth, 6-day creationistist; nothing was made on the 7th day, so I can dig the resting part! I'd give much more thought to re-thinking my hermeneutic to the creation account if it were darned-closely proven that God really did use evolution, that the days weren't days but somethng else--I do hold to the idea that time can be funky, and a day to us in these times might have been longer in the initial creation; some author wrote about this, and I read the book, but I can't remember his name.
Anyway, I can't argue about this issue intelligently and as one learned in the field, but I can go after the need for clarity about what is really being said and what is really being believed. Oh, and I am still wondering about the creationists, too: are they all wrong in their defenses? I simply am not smart enough to figure it out myself, so in one sense that is my reasoning for taking God's Word about creation literally. Then there's the many other references to the account in the rest of Scripture that commentary a literal interpretation, as I see it. So I have to make a stance somewhere, and since I'm not learned in the sciences and all, I choose as I have stated. Convince us, Scott (and I mean that in a true plea) that the creationists are wrong. Clearly wrong. And I'll have food for thought about the matter.
Thanks again,
Starkman
Edited by - Starkman on 06/25/2003 9:56:23 PM | | Back to Top | | |
|
scott_jorgenson
Registered Member
Date Joined Dec 2002
Total Posts : 271
| Posted 6/26/2003 10:09 AM (GMT -6) | | Starkman,
Good to hear from you again.
First, let me say you don't give yourself enough credit when you say such things of yourself as, "I simply am not smart enough to figure it out myself..." Your responses to me have always been clear and cogent, and frankly anybody who can grapple with theology and philosophy (fields dealing with abstract ideas) has the inborn grey matter to deal with humble science (fields ultimately dealing with physical stuff). You simply must invest the time and study in it necessary to be well-rounded.
I have spent 17 years of my life looking into this general issue - not all in one unbroken day-to-day research project, of course, but as something I have never spent more than a few months or at most a year away from. I've read across the field, from philosophically-materialist views of mainstream science (Richard Dawkins, for example - at least 2 of his titles) to young-earth creationism (Henry Morris' classic Scientific Creationism and Duane Gish, for example). In between I've covered theistic evolutionists (Howard Van Till, for example) through progressive/old-earth creationists (Hugh Ross, for example) and of course some of the current stars of the anti-evolution movement, the "Intelligent Design" crowd (Phillip Johnson's Darwin on Trial and Reason in the Balance, for example). I've read Arthur Strahler's exhaustive encyclopedic work, Science and Earth History, from cover-to-cover. I've digested numerous journal articles and, since the emergence of the Internet and especially the Web, online resources ranging from the "Answers in Genesis" site through Ross' "Reasons to Believe" and the famous talk.origins newsgroup. The Internet and Web, in particular, have been very powerful tools for researching what various sides have to say about one mainstream or creationist claim after another, whether its moon dust, the whale transitional sequence, mammal-like reptiles, Earth's magnetic field, etc.
And that is just in the area of science. As I read on and it became clear how powerful and convergent was the mainstream scientific case, I turned more and more to theology, philosophy, and Bible study and commentary to learn what to make of it in biblical terms. Should the Bible's claims trump the world's claims in every case? How should the Bible's claims and the world's claims relate to one another generally, in areas outside matters of faith and practice? What in fact was the Bible actually claiming? Was it in fact claiming anything at all about nature and history? What in fact was the world claiming in mainstream science and history? Were these disciplines in fact claiming anything at all about ontology and purpose? And so on. Thus I've ranged over works from secularist philosophers like Michael Ruse and Philip Kitcher, to Christian theologians like Conrad Hyers, to Christian Bible scholars like Paul Seely, to Christian scientists like Kenneth Miller, Keith Miller, and Davis Young. Again the Internet and Web in particular have been helpful here.
Thus I have arrived at my position today, believing I have done so fairly and honestly. I began the process as a rather uncommitted progressive/old-earth creationist who had so absorbed the doctrine of total factual biblical inerrancy as to be unaware of it. I am now, as you know, a fairly confident theistic evolutionist who has furthermore rejected inerrancy as extrabiblical, inessential, and in fact false. In short, in the views of conservative evangelicalism in which I have grown up, I've liberalized over the years - and that is why you find me here, in a forum welcoming of other evangelical aberrations like the open view :-) So be it.
Unlike some of our conservative brethren, though, I am quite comfortable with a diversity of views within Christianity, and so even though you have a different take on creation-evolution (and, clearly, on inerrancy in general) I am glad to count you as a fellow and friend. I respect your young-earth and inerrantist views and openly acknowledge that they might be right after all. I just don't see any evidential basis for that proposition, after my 17 years of study; whereas I see a good, evidential and inductive basis to my current views.
Well, I've just spent so many words describing my path here that I haven't even gotten around to responding to any of your specific points. I'll try to do so now.
First, all of the specific scientific objections to evolution which you offered have no warrant based on what I've come across in my study. There is copious evidence of human evolution from non-human ancestors, for example. I'd be happy to take a specific objection to anything in mainstream science - your pick, if you like - and get into particulars. But if you really do want to make an independent offline study of the science, Strahler's book and talk.origins (if you are discriminating and look for the "signal" among the "noise" - it is an Internet newsgroup, after all :-) are good starting points.
Second, bear in mind that every past example of scientific failure and revision (a) has not even been comparable to the magnitude necessary to overthrow the general mainstream paradigms in question, let alone establish young-earth creationist views as the norm; and (b) has been error-corrected (here is the kicker) within the mainstream scientific community itself. It wasn't creationist sniping from the sidelines that caused the rejection of the Piltdown forgery, for example. In fact, these revisions - in how they happened - demonstrate the strength, reliability and vitality of the scientific enterprise, and thus, if anything, grow our confidence in its broad and stable areas that have survived thus far.
Third: yes, unfortunately, all those creationist scientists are (I have concluded) generally wrong, to varying degrees more-or-less in direct proportion to their divergence from the mainstream. It is worth keeping in mind that while there are certainly more than a handful of them - there are probably a few hundred, or even upwards of one thousand, creationists of the old-earth or young-earth kind in relevant scientific fields in the United States - their numbers are dwarfed by the mainstream community. For a lighthearted but pointed demonstration of this, read about the National Center for Science Education's "Project Steve" (at, for example, http://www.ncseweb.org/article.asp?category=18).
Finally, as to the Bible being either right or wrong, I think you might want to broaden and deepen your understanding of literary forms. I used to think as you do, in my inerrantist days. Yet we humans communicate Big Truth with one another all the time in forms besides pure, dispassionate, abstract propositional discourse, even today; and in the ancient near East, and even to some degree into New Testament times, that genre was unheard of. It is unrealistic and shortsighted to think that God would have inspired the Bible in such anachronistic ways. Revelation was not given directly to us; it was given to them and passed on, and so it needs to be understood in their terms: the terms of the cultural, religious, and intellectual understandings and concerns of the time. (Indeed, this is the very foundation of, and reasoning behind, literal historical/grammatical interpretation.)
Yet once the literal meaning has been extracted in that historical/grammatical context, it is further necessary to extract the teaching point from the literal meaning; and it must be acknowledged that true teaching points can be conveyed by false literal meaning all the time, in genres other than abstract discourse (genres with which the Bible is replete). It is not dishonest or sophist to refuse to label such passages as "wrong" or "false", anymore than it is dishonest or sophist to refuse such a label for Lord of the Flies - or, for that matter, any of Jesus' parables (especially the ones which are not specifically described as parables by the gospel writer, but which are simply presented without disclaimer). A final example along these lines: was I wrong, false, or a liar when I told my 5-year-old (who has seen enough "Star Wars" to know what a planet is) that the Moon is a planet? No, for - even though the Moon is, of course, not a planet - calling it such conveyed my teaching point (what the Moon is experientially like) in terms he immediately and readily understood, without introducing the misplaced confusion and anachronism that describing orbits, or even saying the Moon is merely "like" a planet, would have done. So I stand by my characterization of appropriate passages in scripture this way. (And my apologies for using the Moon/son example again - I know I've done that before in this forum. Yes I do know I am repeating myself :-)
Hope this helps,
Scott
| | Back to Top | | |
|
johnson
Registered Member
Date Joined Mar 2003
Total Posts : 38
| Posted 6/27/2003 4:37 AM (GMT -6) | | Scott,
Would you explain to me how the shrinking of the sun supports a long earth evolutionary theory? Would you show me the math and all the evidence that supports this view? I have been having difficutly finding the info.
| | Back to Top | | |
|
scott_jorgenson
Registered Member
Date Joined Dec 2002
Total Posts : 271
| Posted 6/27/2003 5:33 PM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Scott,
Would you explain to me how the shrinking of the sun supports a long earth evolutionary theory? Would you show me the math and all the evidence that supports this view? I have been having difficutly finding the info.
Actually, the last time I looked into this, there was no conclusive evidence for an indefinite shrinking of the sun. A quick (2 hour) survey over the Web just now indicates that the current status of this conclusion is unchanged. So it is unnecessary to demonstrate, mathematically or otherwise, how an indefinitely-shrinking sun is compatible with the mainstream scientific view.
Rather, there is inconclusive evidence on historical trends in the size of the sun. It began in 1979, when two mainstream researchers named John Eddy and Aram Boornazian let it be known that they had done a preliminary analysis of Royal Greenwich Observatory solar meridian transit data gathered from 1836 to 1953, and it seemed to indicate a linearized shrinkage rate in the sun's diameter of about 2 arc-seconds per century, or 5 feet per hour. They published an abstract (a short preliminary writeup) and presented it at a professional society meeting. The presentation was tentative, since Eddy and Boornazian fully knew they had a puzzling result and were loathe to run with it (eg, speculate on causes or implications) without the empirical data being repeated and validated.
Needless to say, this result stimulated a lot of interest and numerous other astronomers set to work attempting to analyze and verify their results. From 1979 until present, no one has been able to verify their results. Instead, two things have happened.
First, the Greenwich solar meridian transit data, used by Eddy and Boornazian, has been re-examined and shown to be permeated with sufficient measurement error as to be unuseful for coming to any conclusion on this matter. "Solar meridian transit data" is a technical way of referring to data gathered by naked-eye measurement of the sun's width from ground-based observatories (such as Greenwich). This methodology is simply not precise enough to reliably capture variations of even 2 arc-seconds per century; the varying intensity of the sun's corona, for example, makes it difficult to precisely distinguish where the sun's surface begins. (Work by astronomers John Parkinson, Leslie Morrison, and F. Richard Stephenson, formally peer-reviewed and published in the journal Nature in 1980, helped reveal this.) Consequently Eddy and Boornazian never took their preliminary results to formal publication and instead withdrew them in the 1980's. (Incidentally, this is a good example of the scientific community and method at work, resulting in scientists openly admitting error - something Laplace earlier in this thread thought rarely happened.)
Second, scientists - now intrigued by the idea of investigating variance in the sun's size over time - utilized different measurement techniques to look for trends. For example, one technique employed was solar meridian data obtained during total solar eclipses - more reliable than standard transit data because of how a total eclipse radically cuts back on the sun's luminosity, making measurement easier. D.W. Dunham and others employed this technique, for example, against historical eclipse data, in the journal Science in 1980. Another technique used was Mercury transit data: when Mercury's orbit crosses the body of the sun as seen from Earth, Mercury shows up as a nice little black silhouette whose appearance at one edge of the sun and disappearance at the other serves as a similarly more-reliable measurement of where the body begins and ends, and thus of solar size. For example, Irwin Shapiro used this technique and published, also in Science in 1980. (Of course all published formal papers such as these were fully peer-reviewed first, a stage in the lifecycle that the Eddy/Boornazian results never got to.) Other astronomers later performed original research of their own using these and other techniques, and commented and critiqued one anothers published works well into the 1980's.
What these measurements found was inconsistent results. The early results generally showed shrinkage of the sun, at rates up to 10 times less than Eddy/Boornazian, and just within or slightly outside the realm of statistical certainty. Shapiro, for example, found up to 0.2 or 0.3 arc-seconds per century. Dunham et al found up to 0.25 arc-seconds per century. However at the other end of the statistical-certainty range, they found no significant change in the sun's diameter. (Shapiro's Mercury transit data came from 23 transits from 1736 to 1973. Dunham et al's eclipse data came, as far as I can tell, from a pretty small sample: 2 eclipses in 1715 and 1979.)
Later results expanded the database with more Mercury transits and eclipses, and concluded that there is variance in the sun's diameter, but it is approximately cyclical: the sun swells, shrinks, swells, shrinks, etc, over less than a century (70 to 80 years for the present cycle). Ronald Gilliland kicked-off that work, apparently, publishing in Astrophysics Journal in 1981. However Gilliland did allow, again at the extremes of statistical significance, up to 0.1 arc-seconds/century of long-term shrinkage since the 1700's. This was further refined by Stephenson again in 1982 to 0.16 +/- 0.14 arc-seconds/century; and Parkinson again, as well as S. Sofia, Dunham et al, in 1983 who independently found further evidence of cyclicity in the sun's size (as well as no long-term reduction in size): namely, that it was 0.5 arc-seconds smaller in 1979 than 1925 but that in 1925 it was the same size as it had been in 1715, belying any long-term simple trend. And in 1984, Eddy and Claus Frohlich weighed in with data showing an increase in the sun's size of 0.03 arc-seconds per year (3 arc-seconds per century if extrapolated) between 1967 and 1980, with stasis from then through 1984. Research since then has also showed no significant variation in the sun's size over the 1980's (eg data from 1981 to 1987 and reported in 1998 by T. M. Brown and J. Christensen-Dalsgaard). That seems to be about the last time this was studied.
Integrating all this research, the upshot clearly is that the sun's size does vary cyclically over a century, and there is either an additional small longer-term shrinkage trend, or none at all. Modern accurate measurements only date to the 20th century, making it risky to assert any longer-term trend. In any case, the fairly-confident discovery of a 70 to 80 year present cycle, whose explanation seems to currently be unknown, in any case shows there is at least one cyclical factor at work in the sun. It would be premature to conclude it is the only one, given that the underlying dynamic is not understood.
Thus the evidence does not positively support the creationist claims of indefinite, consistent, long-term sun shrinkage and the absurdity that would pose for all mainstream (ie old-earth/old-solar-system) scientific scenarios. At the most, this is an unresolved area (and likely to be for some time, given the many centuries or millenia of data collection necessary to establish whether there is in fact a longer-term trend and whether it, too, is cyclical). At the least, it is resolved and explainable due to the fact that the only ostensible long-term-shrinkage numbers scientists have today are barely within the realm of detectibility and certainty, being based as they are on 18th and 19th century measurements. In any case, the "shrinking sun" argument is insufficient to dislodge the convergence-of-evidence upon an ancient earth and solar system.
For sources for this, I'll start with young-earth sources since you might respect them the most. The best young-earth source I found just now is a 1989 article by creation scientist Andrew Snelling at the Answers in Genesis Web site, discussing the available data as of 1983. Snelling is rather fair in his assessment; see http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/3852.asp . Answers in Genesis in general is cautious or negative about the shrinking-sun argument - they agree the case is inconclusive and recommend creationists downplay it or not use it at all (see http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2003/0113peterson.asp and do a browser 'find' on 'shrinking').
The ICR Web site, however, still has - completely without revision or disclaimer - the abysmal 1980 mini-paper by creation scientist Russell Akridge that started the creationist legend. See http://www.icr.org/pubs/imp/imp-082.htm . Akridge used the original Eddy/Boornazian data, suspect even at the time of his writing (1980) and now thoroughly discredited as I reported above, as the sole basis for his claims. You won't learn much about this issue from the ICR Web site, I'm afraid.
For a mainstream perspective, see Christian physicist Howard Van Till's 1986 paper, "The Legend of the Shrinking Sun", on the ASA Web site at http://www.asa3.org/ASA/topics/Astronomy-Cosmology/PSCF9-86VanTill.html . Van Till uses the data available through 1984, including sources Snelling doesn't mention in the AIG article I pointed you to above. The ASA is a professional association of Christian scientists in the United States (a group which, incidentally, is largely settled on theistic evolution though that is not at all part of their charter, agenda, or faith statement - as is any Christian scientific organization, you'll find, which does not specifically make young-earth creationism a statement-of-faith). Lastly, see the section in the talk.origins "Solar FAQ" on the subject of the shrinking sun: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-solar.html#_Toc430357875
I hope this helps,
Scott
| | Back to Top | | |
|
honorman
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2002
Total Posts : 1137
| Posted 6/27/2003 6:40 PM (GMT -6) | | This talk reminds me of the phrase, "let each man be persuaved in his own mind..."
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Starkman
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2001
Total Posts : 1747
| Posted 6/29/2003 4:23 PM (GMT -6) | | Scott sir,
Thank you for your kind comments! I'm ... I'm ... I forgot what I was going to say. (See, my memory--or lack thereof--carries right over to my posts!) Ha! And, as I said, Scott, you've done your homework. It's good chattin' with you. So let's continue here.
quote:
First, all of the specific scientific objections to evolution which you offered have no warrant based on what I've come across in my study. There is copious evidence of human evolution from non-human ancestors, for example.
I think, Scott, there is evidence if one has already concluded that evolution is true; one can almost always find "evidence" to support a claim if one tries hard enough. Granted, not all evolutional scientists have started out with an evolutionary a priori. But after one has concluded, or has gained simple predilection, for a side, one tends to defend that side: one looks for evidence for its veracity. Heavens, Creationists do this; however, the difference is they do it with the belief that what God has said about the subject, even if indirectly, is substantive; the VIEW of the evolutionists evidence is not. This brings up, then, two issues of discussion.
quote:
Second, bear in mind that every past example of scientific failure and revision (a) has not even been comparable to the magnitude necessary to overthrow the general mainstream paradigms in question, let alone establish young-earth creationist views as the norm;
I know very few, if any, creationists, young- or old-earth views of creationism, who believe man evolved. Young- and old-earth views are one thing; that man evolved is another. There are, as I understand it, no fossils or bones to support a fossil record or anything remotely close to it in favor of the evolution of man. And with regard to other types of scientific evidence that suggests man evolved, I'm willing to bet that the evidence isn't as conclusive as it's presented because the scientist's context must first be considered: can the evidence be examined, found questionable in its current presentation, and be explained otherwise? This, Scott, is what I remember most in what I've read; that the evidence just wasn't as cut and dry as the evolutionists made it out to be. And that's really as far as I went with what I read. (Just too much to digest. I mean, I ain't no scientist, and I can only take their word and research for being worth something.)
But there's something further and more important (and perhaps this can be the particular we can discuss in more detail): man is higher than than creatures, more noble than they are, and Scripturally without any reason whatsoever to believe that a) he evolved, or b)that he did evolve and at some unknown time God imparted to him His own image. If the Biblical record of Genesis is questionable in regard to its element of time for creation, it is not at all questionable about man's arrival and beginning and having been made in God's image from that very beginning. It demands too much of the language of the Creation account to suggest that evolution is what it is speaking about.
Oh, and real quickly here, before I forget, I have to clarify something. I'm not at all opposed to the contents of the Genesis record coming from the context of what surrounding cultures would have understood. Not at all. Neither am I opposed to a poetic entrance for the book, namely the Creation account. I am, however, objecting to what is done with the message conveyed because these particular means are used. For instance, if I want to say, "I am the way, the truth and the life," and I wanted to do it using nearby cultural venacular and idiom, but I still wanted to convey that I really am the way, the truth and the life, how else could I say it (and have it mean what I say) than to say "I am the way, the truth and the life"? Poetic or cultural admixture does not negate the clear, concise meaning of the text or demand any other interpretatio than what is communicated. One cannot say that it doesn't mean what it says because of the means used, unless there's darned good reason.
Scripture uses hyperbole, poetry, etc.; God is not a chicken, even when it is said that under His wings shall you trust! But the Creation account just doesn't fall into similar category. That God is specific to say Adam was created out of the dirt, the breath of life breathed into Him, and that he became a living soul--in a poetic context or not--is too straight-forward and without ambiguity or clarity. Hard to believe, maybe. But clear, concise and not impossible, without a doubt. It wouldn't matter, Scott, what evidence someone presents to attempt substantiation of man's evolving. The evidence as of yet has proven to be conclusive and without other explanations possible. There's just been way too many times when someone has said, "See, here's proof: now we know," and a little later on it gets completely turned upside down. This no less in the evolutionists circle. That God created man and did not evolve man is plain and clear. That the earth is young or old? Well, as I said, time can play funky tricks on us!)
Finally, man is created with morals, truth and absolutes (though pretty skewed at the moment!) built into him. There is no place in the evolutionary process for man to evolve these qualities, let alone support this from Scripture. It cannot, and never will be, pointed out that "There, right there in the evolutional process is where man got the image of God part of himself settled." It's the same problem with which pro-abortionists and many anti-abortionists stuggle: when did the soul finally arrive? As if at that time the human being is now a "person" and of value. No OT person's perspective was of the evolutionary framework, and it wasn't Jesus'or any of the NT writers. Culture and poetry--as I say, I can accept the literary aspects of this approach--cannot replace the clarity of "But from the beginning of the creation, God made them male and female" (Mark 10:6).
In closing, I have to say, Scott, that I am sick to death of your moon analogy! All you ever talk about anymore is the moon: moon, moon, moon. I've had it! I can't take it anymore. Why must you torch ... tourch ... um ... torment (can't remember how to spell torcher!) us?
Really, I don't remember the moon analogy, so, hey, we're starting from scratch as far as I'm concerned. Use all the old goodies you have! I'll try very hard to remember them well.
Well, it be time to do the thing and get off this computer for the night. Until then!
Starkman
| | Back to Top | | |
|
honorman
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2002
Total Posts : 1137
| Posted 6/29/2003 7:25 PM (GMT -6) | | Starkman, thank you for bringing up your excellant point! It is one I have struggled with as I have thought over both sides. While still going over the subject it is my opinion that if one accepts evolution than one must declared the creation story is Genesis untrue. There is nothing within it that would remotely fit within an evolutionary view. I would have to simply declare the Bible wrong.
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Starkman
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2001
Total Posts : 1747
| Posted 6/30/2003 4:02 AM (GMT -6) | | Honorman,
quote:
While still going over the subject it is my opinion that if one accepts evolution than one must declared the creation story is Genesis untrue. There is nothing within it that would remotely fit within an evolutionary view. I would have to simply declare the Bible wrong
I think this is the crux of the issue, frankly. I can make allowance for an old-earth view (though I do not, in fact, hold to the view) without violating God's Word: time, as has been noted, is weird and is relative, at least in the framework of the creation. But I cannot find any allowance for the evolution of mankind without total violation of God's Word. (Now Scott, being the heathen and pagan that he his, well, he'll disagree, but what does he know! Kiddin' ya, Scott!)
Starkman
Starkman
| | Back to Top | | |
|
scott_jorgenson
Registered Member
Date Joined Dec 2002
Total Posts : 271
| Posted 6/30/2003 8:25 AM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Honorman,
quote:
While still going over the subject it is my opinion that if one accepts evolution than one must declared the creation story is Genesis untrue. There is nothing within it that would remotely fit within an evolutionary view. I would have to simply declare the Bible wrong
I think this is the crux of the issue, frankly. I can make allowance for an old-earth view (though I do not, in fact, hold to the view) without violating God's Word: time, as has been noted, is weird and is relative, at least in the framework of the creation. But I cannot find any allowance for the evolution of mankind without total violation of God's Word. (Now Scott, being the heathen and pagan that he his, well, he'll disagree, but what does he know! Kiddin' ya, Scott!)
Starkman
I think you guys are over-laboring under the burden of concordism. You feel that God's purpose in the Genesis accounts is to give a pretty accurate review of what physically happened in prehistory. Couched in the cultural context of the time, of course, but nonetheless a sort of primer in science and history; the sort of thing we would do today, if trying to teach 4-year-olds science and history, for example. Thus you are naturally very concerned when you find a large degree of divergence between Genesis 1-11 and the conclusions of modern research. Do you reject one, or the other, or attempt to harmonize by reinterpreting both?
Yet I see nothing but extrabiblical presupposition in the idea that God seeks to teach primordial science and history in Genesis 1-11. I've come to believe instead that what he seeks to teach in Genesis 1-11 is basic facts about who he is, who man and the rest of the creation are, and what their respective basic natures and relationships are. To teach these Big Truths he uses the pre-modern scientific and historical concepts of the day - ancient near-Eastern cosomology, for example - and he uses the literary genre preferred in that day for communicating Big Truths - legend - as a mere vehicle for doing so. And that people may actually believe the physical reality of the legend is superfluous, since that is ancillary to the teaching point. We see Jesus, for example, do similarly in his use of unannounced parables and popular scientific misconceptions such as the mustard seed and the Queen of Sheba's having come from literally "the ends of the earth". This is just God's wise way of "becoming all things to all men" (to paraphrase Paul), teaching his children the things that matter - not all that science and history, but what pleases the Lord and saves the soul - and teaching in a way that the maximum number will "get it". Its really not too unlike how we often teach our own youngest children: with stories. Again, may I suggest you read Conrad Hyer's The Meaning of Creation - especially the first few chapters - regarding this. Paul Seely is another excellent writer on this.
Thus, seen in this light, there is no harmonization - no concordance - to be expected between Genesis 1-11 and modern scientific and historical discoveries. No matter how great the divergence, it doesn't offer cause to reject the Bible or say it is just "wrong". And conversely, no matter how great the divergence, it doesn't offer cause to reject well-established conclusions of modern science either. Thus, just as the use of ordinary days within Genesis 1 needn't compel our science into that timeframe, nor do references to the creation of man in God's image compel certain scientific conclusions about our physical history. We are free to follow the evidence where it may, and today the evidence does clearly seem to indicate humanity's common descent with the primates from a joint non-human ancestor. Of course, as with any science, in principle this could be wrong, but it is the best science of our time regarding human physical origins.
The evidences for this common descent of humanity are basically the same, in their general character, as the evidences for common descent of other species: nested hierarchical homology in phenotype, recapitulated in nested hierarchical homology in genotype (even non-functional sequences, ie so-called "junk DNA"), recapitulated in fossil finds such as Australopithecus and Homo habilis, recapitulated in the successive biogeography and age of those finds. Kenneth Miller dedicates a chapter in Finding Darwin's God to the evidence for human evolution.
As far as a theological and biblical standpoint goes: I've never understood how it can be asserted that (a) my being a creation of God is consistent with my development in my mother's womb having been "natural" (another conclusion of modern science); and yet (b) our all being a creation of God - a teaching point of Genesis 1-3 - is necessarily inconsistent with our development as a species having been "natural". Being made in God's image no more means that we must have been specially-created, than it means God must have two arms and two legs. It simply means that God is our creator, and he has gifted us with full awareness of ourselves and him in a way that is unique to our species. Similarly, being made from the dust of the ground and God's inbreathing no more means we must have been specially-created, than it means our bodies are literally dust or that God has lungs.
Note: I'm going to be leaving tomorrow for an early July 4th holiday, so this may be it from me for a while. In any case, I'm starting to repeat myself and not say anything you didn't already know concerning my thoughts on this matter, especially regarding concordism and inerrancy, so this is probably a pretty good spot to wind down.
Scott | | Back to Top | | |
|
scott_jorgenson
Registered Member
Date Joined Dec 2002
Total Posts : 271
| Posted 6/30/2003 8:41 AM (GMT -6) | | quote:
But I cannot find any allowance for the evolution of mankind without total violation of God's Word. (Now Scott, being the heathen and pagan that he his, well, he'll disagree, but what does he know! Kiddin' ya, Scott!)
Starkman
I appreciate and am comfortable with your ribbing me :-)
Nonetheless it is worth pointing out that others would be dead-serious about whay you say. Biochemist Terry Gray was "convicted" of heresy in the Orthodox Presbyterian Church for holding the same view of human evolution that I do, and was censured and removed from the office of elder in that denomination as a result. See http://www.asa3.org/gray/evolution_trial/ Of course, OPC is a pretty conservative denomination.
Howard Van Till, Davis Young, and Clarence Meninga (scientists and professors at Calvin College) were likewise investigated for heresy by the Reformed Church in the late 1980's for holding basically to theistic evolution (in Van Till's case, the inquisition went on for several years, touching all aspects of his personal beliefs). In the end they were "cleared" but the experience seems to have so soured Van Till that he has left the Reformed Church for a more-liberal denomination and no longer considers himself an evangelical.
Scott
| | Back to Top | | |
|
honorman
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2002
Total Posts : 1137
| Posted 6/30/2003 10:55 AM (GMT -6) | | Scott: a person cannot get around the fact that Genesis teaches a couple of primary things: that God created a man and woman instananeously and specially. Your view, seems to me, to be completely extra-biblical. Why would you believe God meant something else or didn't mean what the text says unless you presuppose it to say something else. Quite frankly the text is plain in its meaning unless one presupposes something different.
| | Back to Top | | |
|
honorman
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2002
Total Posts : 1137
| Posted 6/30/2003 10:57 AM (GMT -6) | | Plus I think you do not give the people of the time enough credit for being able to understand what God wanted them to know. If there was evolution God certainly gave us a pretty off story about creation. He is certainly a very confusing God.
| | Back to Top | | |
|
ReasonableDoubt
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 655
| Posted 6/30/2003 11:04 AM (GMT -6) | | | I'm curious, where does it say instantaneously? If Adam was created out of dirt, and Eve was created from Adam's rib, doesn't that mean that there was some sort of human creation process- God didn't just say "presto" and there they were. | | Back to Top | | |
|
honorman
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2002
Total Posts : 1137
| Posted 6/30/2003 6:21 PM (GMT -6) | | RD: how do you know God didn't just say "presto," and man was, unless you have a preconceived notion of how God did it. The Bible says God believed into Adam the breath of life. Do you honestly believe that such a thing took centuries, that the specialness of man, the image of God was conceived over millions of years, that God had to continuely breath this breath into man, in such a flawed way as evolution? And then God gives us this pretty straighforward story, only it isn't because it has to be explained in a different way because of a theory that has yet to be proved? Like I said our God must be a pretty confusing and pretty inept one...
| | Back to Top | | |
|
scott_jorgenson
Registered Member
Date Joined Dec 2002
Total Posts : 271
| Posted 7/5/2003 8:32 PM (GMT -6) | | I'm back. Just to tie up this loose end (a direct question put to me - I would let this sleeping-dog-of-a-thread lie, but I don't want anyone to think their directly-addressed comments have been ignored):
quote:
Scott: a person cannot get around the fact that Genesis teaches a couple of primary things: that God created a man and woman instananeously and specially. Your view, seems to me, to be completely extra-biblical. Why would you believe God meant something else or didn't mean what the text says unless you presuppose it to say something else. Quite frankly the text is plain in its meaning unless one presupposes something different.
Again: I agree the text is plain in its meaning: God created Adam (the first literal historical man) from the dust of the earth, and Eve (the first literal historical woman) from Adam's rib. I am not one who contorts and reinterprets the text to serve as some sort of veiled evolutionary primer. I hope that is clear now. In fact, I believe I go beyond you and agree that the text is just as plain in its further literal meanings: that, for example, the world was created in 6 regular days, that this happened just a few thousand years ago, and that (among other things) what the world consists of is a flat earth floating on the sea and surmounted by a solid sky above which is more seawater.
Where I disagree is that any of these plain meanings are the teaching point. You, and indeed all concordists, seem to feel that God would not have condescended to allow various legendary motifs, extant in the culture at the time, to serve as his revelatory vehicle. You seem to suppose this would offend God's sense of truth, as if God cares about scientific truth or cares that it be carefully communicated to us when its details have no salvific or spiritual value. You seem to feel that God agrees with modern man: that the supreme value modern man places on objective, critical science and history is also God's normative value, and thus God wouldn't do anything discordant with such a value such as employ legend for pedagogical effect in his earliest revelation.
But those suppositions are entirely extrabiblical and falsified biblically: First, there is the use of colloquial science and history throughout the Bible, from the ancient Near Eastern cosmology through the popular (and strictly-speaking incorrect) biological classifications in Leviticus to some of Jesus' own references (eg, the mustard seed). Second, there is the use of a wide variety of literary genres throughout the Bible, including unannounced (ie not plainly self-identified) fictional genres such as some of Jesus' parables; poetry such as the Psalms and Song of Solomons; apocalypse such as parts of Revelation, Daniel, and Ezekiel; etc. Third, there are the similarities the Genesis accounts in particular exhibit with the genre of legend (ie etiologies, wordplays, anthropomorphisms) and even particular legends of the surrounding cultures at the time. All these show that God simply doesn't care to communicate accurate scientific and historic details in his revelation, and that he accordingly freely uses literary genres which do not insist on such, and that he may even have done so with the genre of legend in Genesis. Notice finally how this whole line of reasoning is inductive, and how controversial science or other extra-biblical knowledge doesn't even enter into the equation - this belies the idea that this line of reasoning is all one big extrabiblical presupposition itself.
Anyway, I hope this answers your point. Best regards,
Scott
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Starkman
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2001
Total Posts : 1747
| Posted 7/6/2003 12:24 PM (GMT -6) | | Hey Scott,
Welcome back,
quote:
Again: I agree the text is plain in its meaning: God created Adam (the first literal historical man) from the dust of the earth, and Eve (the first literal historical woman) from Adam's rib. I am not one who contorts and reinterprets the text to serve as some sort of veiled evolutionary primer. I hope that is clear now. In fact, I believe I go beyond you and agree that the text is just as plain in its further literal meanings: that, for example, the world was created in 6 regular days, that this happened just a few thousand years ago, and that (among other things) what the world consists of is a flat earth floating on the sea and surmounted by a solid sky above which is more seawater.
There is, in fact, a common denominator among the human race that makes communication possible. It's built into us. Kind of like learning--we don't need to be taught how to learn; we simply know how to learn. When we speak, we inherently know that others will know the basic meaning we are communicating. And we know, unless it is recognized otherwise by presupposition or teaching, that what we are communicating is not, in fact, to mean exactly what we are communication (again, God is not a chicken because the Bible refers to Him having wings).
There simply can be no commication, at all, if there is not this pre-existent common denominator running in the stream of human beings. So ...
quote:
Where I disagree is that any of these plain meanings are the teaching point.
Why? Because of scientific evidence that's to the contrary, or because when you first read these words (and as others have done for millenia now), you were led to believe that the plain meaning couldn't be what the author meant? I'd suspect it is the former that has influenced you, and that's all of a point I want to make at this juncture. In all honesty, you, Scott, have reached a conclusion having originally believed as a concordist (if I recall your prior post correctly), but after weighing the scientific evidence, you changed your thinking. Perfectly fine and respectable.
quote:
You, and indeed all concordists, seem to feel that God would not have condescended to allow various legendary motifs, extant in the culture at the time, to serve as his revelatory vehicle.
I don't believe it has anything to do with condescension. It is clear that there are Near East traditions, legends and myths that are similar to the Genesis account. I, myself, have already agreed to this. What I don't agree with is that those legends and myths, as recorded by the surrounding Near East cultures, are necessarily the pure and accurate record of truth as is the "plain meaning" of Genesis; God, as we understand it, gave this to Moses. That a surrounding nation has a legend of similar content is only to confirm something of the original, though distorted.
The Genesis record must be truth. It must convey truth ... of some sort, or it is not only a waste of time, but very deceptive, because there is no redeeming quality of the account otherwise. It doesn't say anything, and it has left the common denominator of communcation. There is no revelatory communication, because there's nothing coherent in the first place to be communcated SINCE ... the account does not convey (apart from an outside influence, such as science) any reason to believe other than exactly what its plain message and meaning is. I just don't think this is the case.
This is where the creation story of Genesis departs from the Near East accounts: it is truth. It must be (whether we think it's conveying something other than what it plainly means). The language, as we've agreed, is clear and concise and is plain and easily understood. There is no illogical or mythological feel in its genre, and its straight-forwardness is impossible to miss. There's no ambiguity--though some are not sure HOW the mechanics of the creation itself took place. It is, to be sure, quite scientific and astronomical, not in it's duplicability, but in its coverage. But it is not so anti-literally.
quote:
You seem to suppose this would offend God's sense of truth, as if God cares about scientific truth or cares that it be carefully communicated to us when its details have no salvific or spiritual value.
I think there is tons of salvific and spiritual meaning behind the creation account. No, God doesn't come out and say to Adam, "You need to get saved," but He sure does address the need for the concept to be appreciated by clothing Adam with skins, and insuring Cain and Able's proper sacrifical system is kept in its integrity. Consider also the deep reflections about the seventh day concept the author of the book of Hebrews employs; the profound meaning of oneness between man and woman (and eventually children) as noted by Christ, which says something very significant about the oneness of God as Triune. It isn't that there isn't salvific and spiritual meaning in the account, it is only whether one's opinion is that there is no salvific or spiritual value.
quote:
You seem to feel that God agrees with modern man: that the supreme value modern man places on objective, critical science and history is also God's normative value, and thus God wouldn't do anything discordant with such a value such as employ legend for pedagogical effect in his earliest revelation.
Not at all. I just don't believe God has time in Scripture to not say what He means. So, if God does employ legend, He does so with truth and accuracy of how it really was. It is not the Word of God otherwise. It is simply another good fantasy. Kind of like the Bible's history (oh, how often the "scholars" were so sure that history proved the Bible unreliable!). Who needs history? There's a ton of other history books. But God's Word conveys accurate history for the sake of saying something accurately about relationship between Himself and us. Not a history book, but not inaccurate history.
quote:
But those suppositions are entirely extrabiblical and falsified biblically: First, there is the use of colloquial science and history throughout the Bible, from the ancient Near Eastern cosmology through the popular (and strictly-speaking incorrect) biological classifications in Leviticus to some of Jesus' own references (eg, the mustard seed).
I can't comment about this from having done the research, so I'm going to say this from the fact that history has backed up the one defense I can give: Over and over, it was "proved" that the Bible was mistaken about this and that. As it turned out, new evidence--be it archeological, scientific, or astronomical--constantly showed itself to give credence to the Word of God's accuracy. I don't think the final word is out yet on the issue of the rabbit-chewing-the-cud. (Here's where I should take the time to go back and read yours and Sean's conversation about it, but I, too, only have so much time!)
quote:
Second, there is the use of a wide variety of literary genres throughout the Bible, including unannounced (ie not plainly self-identified) fictional genres such as some of Jesus' parables; poetry such as the Psalms and Song of Solomons; apocalypse such as parts of Revelation, Daniel, and Ezekiel; etc.
But none of these, Scott, presents anything remotely close to the issues raised by questioning the plain meaning of the Genesis creation account (well, okay, the sun-standing-still thing is a monster to deal with, but not without reasonable explaination). As far as the apocalyptic, the plain meaning of, say, Revelation is NOT that it happened literally as read. THAT'S the difference. But reading the Genesis story (with no modern influences) leaves one to say, "Well, okay, God created the world in six days, rested (ceased) on the seventh. Cool." You can't possibly read Revelation, however, and say, "Okay, so somewhere out there in the sky is this seven-headed dragon, a beast that looks like a lion and a few other animals." Poetry is the same way; by it's very essence, it incorporates all kinds of genre and style. That's a given.
Finally, nothing Jesus said was so "out there" that it wasn't recognized as circumambient to the common denominator of communication. His parables were clear, concise and so often times very literal. Even Lazarus and the rich man is not out of reach of meaning exactly what it says. Or "I saw Satan fall from heaven." That, too, is clear and most likely means exactly what it means. And anything Jesus said that cannot be taken literally, it surely isn't much guess work--oh, I suppose you could find an example or two--as to what He really meant. But taking the Genesis account in any other plain meaning than what it says, IS, in my opinion, to swing the door not only wide open but to remove it and the building it allows entrance to. There is simply nothing left to understand or believe as to what it means.
quote:
Third, there are the similarities the Genesis accounts in particular exhibit with the genre of legend (ie etiologies, wordplays, anthropomorphisms) and even particular legends of the surrounding cultures at the time. All these show that God simply doesn't care to communicate accurate scientific and historic details in his revelation, and that he accordingly freely uses literary genres which do not insist on such, and that he may even have done so with the genre of legend in Genesis.
I have to strongly disagree, Scott. It is not good reasoning to assume the integrity of the original impossible because of the distortion of the original elsewhere. And it isn't good reasoning to posit God's attitude of disregard for truth and its accuracy when communicating to mankind just because a surrounding culture has a similar account. No, nothing proves God didn't care, I'd contend. (And I'm not saying you disrespect God or anything like that, Scott. We're simply arguing presups here, that's all.)
quote:
Notice finally how this whole line of reasoning is inductive, and how controversial science or other extra-biblical knowledge doesn't even enter into the equation - this belies the idea that this line of reasoning is all one big extrabiblical presupposition itself.
* God exists (we do agree on that one, right!)
* God cannot lie or speak falsehoods.
* God has spoken through Moses about the creation. (We also agree on this, right?)
* What God said must be truth or convey truth.
* The Genesis record, therefore, is true (though open for interpretation; but it must mean something meaningful and in context when interpreted).
I come from this presupposition. I don't need inherency at this point, only these premises. This isn't inductive, and no, it doesn't consider controversial science either. But ...
When science comes along with the controversial, I only ask that we consider the presuppositions of the one interpreting the evidence. I think this is what Ken Ham probably harps on a lot of times (though it's been a while since I've read much of the stuff on his site). It isn't that the evidence is so clear-cut (again, I'm going by what I've read, and it's nowhere near as much as you have, Scott), it is that the presupposition IS. And scientific evidence of this nature is ... highly inductive too!
Well, I too have about exhausted my words on this subject. Not intending to have the last word, but by no means left without it! (Ha!). Do feel free to comment more, Scott. And I will concede the last word to you graciously. (Oh, I know it's no big deal, but it's my way of saying "Hey, your turn, and we're done.")
(And I'm not even going to begin to try and edit this! I ain't got no more time! So pardon the mistakes, please.)
Starkman
| | Back to Top | | |
|
DLW
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2003
Total Posts : 2457
| Posted 7/6/2003 12:33 PM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Starkman, thank you for bringing up your excellant point! It is one I have struggled with as I have thought over both sides. While still going over the subject it is my opinion that if one accepts evolution than one must declared the creation story is Genesis untrue. There is nothing within it that would remotely fit within an evolutionary view. I would have to simply declare the Bible wrong.
No, one does not have to declare the Bible wrong. One has to declare that it is wrong to read the Bible's creation account as if it were a scientific report. To understand its meaning, one must correlate and contrast it with the alternative creation accounts that were around.
Its value to us does not rest on its literal trueness...
dlw
Prayer from Kenya
From the Cowardice that dare not face new truth,
From the Laziness that is contented with half-truth,
From the Arrogance that thinks it knows all truth,
Lord Deliver Me. | | Back to Top | | |
|
Starkman
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2001
Total Posts : 1747
| Posted 7/6/2003 4:09 PM (GMT -6) | | Hey there, DWL,
quote:
No, one does not have to declare the Bible wrong. One has to declare that it is wrong to read the Bible's creation account as if it were a scientific report.
No one's suggesting we read the Bible as a scientific report. We are suggesting, however, that one read it for what it says, and it neither says nor hints anything about evolution.
quote:
To understand its meaning, one must correlate and contrast it with the alternative creation accounts that were around.
Absolutely not!  Language is communicable via the common denominator I noted in my post above. If it were the case that Genesis must be understood in the context of nearby cultures' alternative creation accounts, then none of us could ever communicate any truth; for we would need to consult nearby cultures to begin an interpretation of what we've been told. And I maintain that the common denominator built into the human race, like an epistomology that is already present without having to be put there, is sufficient (with the assistance of a language, of course) to communicate coherently and truthfully.
quote:
Its value to us does not rest on its literal trueness...
No, but its value to us DOES rest on a literal understanding of the trueness the immediate reading communicates. For example, "days" in the account may be long or short (as noted, time is weird!). But the literal UNDERSTANDING is that it is, in fact, in days--short or long--the universe was created, not evolved. A second example might be the serpent. Serpents, as we have noted, do not talk. But the message of the serpent compared to the previous command of God is unmistakable. So, if it turns out that the serpent wasn't really talking, I wouldn't be surprised; that's a given. (Maybe what Eve heard was a voice from something demonic manifesting itself as if it were talking through the snake. She might have bought into it; they were all pretty new to the earth and its ways back then.) The message, however, is clear. God created--did not evolve--Adam (as in the human race). Adam and Eve fell, and it would seem the fall was rather precipitous; for the next time they walk with God (again, however that happened), all was evident.
My whole point here, folks, is that we are really pushed into a bifurcation: read and understand the creation account for what it says or adjust its meaning (usually to the extent of total anihiliation of the "plain meaning") to coincide with fractional scientific evidence for evolution--fractional meaning not all of science supports evolution. (The third alternative is to reinterpret the account without parting from the contextual meaning ... too much!) Really, this is what this discussion is about, not whether any of us are right, but that the perspectives are clearly elucidated.
Here here!
Starkman
| | Back to Top | | |
|
DLW
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2003
Total Posts : 2457
| Posted 7/7/2003 4:33 PM (GMT -6) | | Hi Starkdude,
quote:
quote:
No, one does not have to declare the Bible wrong. One has to declare that it is wrong to read the Bible's creation account as if it were a scientific report.
No one's suggesting we read the Bible as a scientific report. We are suggesting, however, that one read it for what it says, and it neither says nor hints anything about evolution.
Well, one could say that the view of God in the Bible evolves, changes over time. The point is that it doesn't say anything about Physics either, but that doesn't mean that Physics isn't true or valid science.
quote:
quote:
To understand its meaning, one must correlate and contrast it with the alternative creation accounts that were around.
Absolutely not! Language is communicable via the common denominator I noted in my post above. If it were the case that Genesis must be understood in the context of nearby cultures' alternative creation accounts, then none of us could ever communicate any truth; for we would need to consult nearby cultures to begin an interpretation of what we've been told.
Well, the more we did consult such sources, the better we probably would understand the Bible, which isn't to say that there aren't some parallels/passages that are easier to understand without such training.
However, the creation account was recorded and passed along with a meaning that is better understood in contrast to the other competing stories. Much of the heat between creationism and evolutionism could have been avoided if we were better aware of the context and purpose of the creation account.
quote:
And I maintain that the common denominator built into the human race, like an epistomology that is already present without having to be put there, is sufficient (with the assistance of a language, of course) to communicate coherently and truthfully.
The problem is that often we do not communicate coherently and this can lead to intense conflicts that wouldn't be so intense if we took the time to understand each other and where we were coming from...
quote:
quote:
Its value to us does not rest on its literal trueness...
No, but its value to us DOES rest on a literal understanding of the trueness the immediate reading communicates. For example, "days" in the account may be long or short (as noted, time is weird!). But the literal UNDERSTANDING is that it is, in fact, in days--short or long--the universe was created, not evolved. A second example might be the serpent. Serpents, as we have noted, do not talk. But the message of the serpent compared to the previous command of God is unmistakable. So, if it turns out that the serpent wasn't really talking, I wouldn't be surprised; that's a given. (Maybe what Eve heard was a voice from something demonic manifesting itself as if it were talking through the snake. She might have bought into it; they were all pretty new to the earth and its ways back then.) The message, however, is clear. God created--did not evolve--Adam (as in the human race). Adam and Eve fell, and it would seem the fall was rather precipitous; for the next time they walk with God (again, however that happened), all was evident.
The meaning and value of the creation account goes beyond this immediate reading. I wouldn't be surprised if the dichotomy you are making between created and evolved is not so important. I.e., there are in-betweens between "natural selection" and plopping out humans in their current form from out of nothingness.
quote:
My whole point here, folks, is that we are really pushed into a bifurcation: read and understand the creation account for what it says or adjust its meaning (usually to the extent of total anihiliation of the "plain meaning") to coincide with fractional scientific evidence for evolution--fractional meaning not all of science supports evolution. (The third alternative is to reinterpret the account without parting from the contextual meaning ... too much!) Really, this is what this discussion is about, not whether any of us are right, but that the perspectives are clearly elucidated.
There is a book titled God after Darwin that gives a better articulation of the different ways one can try to relate Christianity and Evolution.
I would suggest that there is a fair amount of onto-theological diversity associated with evolution and that our perception that it conflicts with Scripture is an artefact of the influence of English Theology that tended to associate Christianity closely with Newtonian Physics and the view of reality as like a watch, subject to well-tuned laws. When evolution came out with its view of things evolving slowly over time and with much waste for much of history this undermined the classical conception of God. Thus leading to a supposed conflict between Religion and Science, when the conflict was really between how Christianity had been so closely aligned with a particular view of science, which was laid to rest with the further progress of science.
later,
dlw
Prayer from Kenya
From the Cowardice that dare not face new truth,
From the Laziness that is contented with half-truth,
From the Arrogance that thinks it knows all truth,
Lord Deliver Me. | | Back to Top | | |
| 35 posts in this thread.
Viewing Page : 1 2 |
| Forum Information | Currently it is Monday, November 09, 2026 3:24 PM (GMT -6)
There are a total of 97,718 posts in 6,040 threads.
In the last 3 days there were 0 new threads and 0 reply posts. View Active Threads
|
Forum powered by dotNetBB v2.42EC SP3
dotNetBB © 2000-2026 |
|
|