I don't have time to post my thoughts on that debate right now. Instead, I offer a talk I gave in a Calvin College chapel service in 2005, which I've been intending to share here since the beginning. The topic was the Psalms. The title was "Stealing It Back." I've edited it slightly. I think it says a lot of what I think when I see smart atheists (who I like and respect) using the chilling language of armed conflict when discussing the simple question of whether faith and science are "compatible."
Calvin College chapel
19 September 2005
"Stealing It Back"
First, a quick disclaimer about my use of the term "struggles." I do want to tell you about my journey as a Christian academic scientist and the power of God's word to bring strength into our lives. But I don't want you to think that I've had it rough or that I would ever compare the bumps in this journey to the kinds of experiences that we'd call suffering. It helps me in this regard to recall my wife's frequent response when I whine about my "struggles" (mostly unfinished grading): waa waa waa.
So seriously, some thoughts on how God's word has been a rock to me, a light unto my path. I want to highlight three questions or issues in the journey, and show how Psalm 104, a personal favorite, has been a rock for me.
Early in my career, when I was in graduate school, I'd often find myself in a conversation something like this:
"So Steve, what is it that you're studying again?" "Oh, I'm interested in the subcellular mechanisms underlying enhanced neurite outgrowth induced by steroid hormones in cultured neurons from the moth nervous system."Well, not really...I would patiently explain that I was interested in how nerve cells grow and that I was studying the question in a model system where it was easy to do that. The next question would go something like this: "Why on earth would you want to do that?"
One person did actually ask the question just like that; typically it would be more polite, and would assume that my work had one or both of the following motivations: 1) to cure diseases (in humans, not moths); or 2) to witness to unbelievers. In fact, my work then and now does touch on both those things and they're both of obvious importance. But imagine what it sounded like to me when a church leader said to someone else, about me: "Isn't it great that Steve's there at Harvard Medical School doing research? Think of all the opportunities he has to witness to those people." It didn't seem to enter anyone's mind that studying God's creation could have a more intrinsic value than that.
It was certain of the Psalms that grounded me here, and helped me to see that my calling was not merely a vehicle to get me into the presence of the godless early and often. I'm sorry that I missed Scott Hoezee's message on Psalm 19, because I quoted that Psalm in my dissertation, writing, "the heavens declare the glory of God; the skies proclaim the work of his hands. Same goes for neuronal morphology."
Psalm 104 is an extended reflection on creation. Here's how it describes some of God's interactions with natural creation:
The LORD wraps himself in light as with a garment; he stretches out the heavens like a tent and lays the beams of his upper chambers on their waters. He makes the clouds his chariot and rides on the wings of the wind. He makes winds his messengers, flames of fire his servants.and later in verse 31 the Psalmist says:
– Psalm 104:2-4, TNIV
May the glory of the LORD endure forever; may the LORD rejoice in his works.Why look intently at the creation and try to understand it? Because it's cool; God thinks it's cool. He gets delight from it, rides around on it. He rejoices in it. To enter the examination of God's creation is to share God's delight in what he has made. It's his creation. He made it. He thinks it's great.
A second struggle I had was one that arises as a consequence of the fact that much biological science can in fact be used to help cure disease or grow food or help meet various human needs. Strangely, at least in the Christian circles we used to frequent, this created a tension between God's miraculous provision and his non-miraculous provision. There was something better about miraculous healing, for example, than healing brought about by, say, antibiotics. In fact, we did occasionally hear claims that one should forgo certain medical interventions and instead seek God's healing. The problem with this sort of thinking is that it ignores God's claims here in Psalm 104 to be behind all provision of pretty much every kind.
He makes springs pour water into the ravines; it flows between the mountains. They give water to all the beasts of the field; the wild donkeys quench their thirst. The birds of the sky nest by the waters; they sing among the branches. He waters the mountains from his upper chambers; the land is satisfied by the fruit of his work. He makes grass grow for the cattle, and plants for people to cultivate— bringing forth food from the earth: wine that gladdens human hearts, oil to make their faces shine, and bread that sustains their hearts. The trees of the LORD are well watered, the cedars of Lebanon that he planted.I'd love to try manna sometime, because I'm curious, but if you want to eat bread from God's hand, you can buy it at D&W. (If you try to buy some wine to gladden your heart, though, be prepared to show ID).
– Psalm 104:10-16, TNIV
In Psalm 104, God claims every form of provision as his own. If our scientific efforts to understand spinal cord injury someday get people out of wheelchairs, God will claim that too. Psalm 104 helped me abandon the notion that non-miraculous provision is not God's provision.
The last struggle I've had as a Christian biologist has been the one you probably assumed we'd spend our whole time on. Yes, the topic is evolution. Early in my development as a Christian scientist I worried that evolution could threaten the idea of God as the creator of life. I think I know why I had this worry, and I'll talk about it in a second, but the worry disappeared over time as I learned more and more about God's limitless claims on this universe. Here in Psalm 104 God is identified as the source of just about every biological process I can think of. We've already noted his hand in the provision of food of all kinds for all kinds of creatures. (We left out lions, who "roar for their prey and seek their food from God.") Verses 24-30 are central to my hopeful commitment to biology:
How many are your works, LORD! In wisdom you made them all; the earth is full of your creatures. There is the sea, vast and spacious, teeming with creatures beyond number— living things both large and small. There the ships go to and fro, and the leviathan, which you formed to frolic there. All creatures look to you to give them their food at the proper time. When you give it to them, they gather it up; when you open your hand, they are satisfied with good things. When you hide your face, they are terrified; when you take away their breath, they die and return to the dust. When you send your Spirit, they are created, and you renew the face of the ground.That word there in verse 30, "created," I learned recently, is bara, the same word used in Genesis 1-2. It was Psalm 104 that finally helped me to rest in the knowledge that whatever the process of biology that we're considering, death, reproduction, feeding, whatever...it's all God's hand. Period. Studying animal development is studying creation, Bara Creation.
Now why was this so significant for me? Well surely because it helped remove doubts I may have been harboring about God's wisdom and omnipotence as a creator. But also because it exposed for me one of the biggest lies that often crops up in discussions of biology among Christians.
You see, there are two big problems that Christians who oppose evolution seem to have with it. 1) Some Christians say it's a lousy theory and that evolution didn't happen. If you think about it, that's just an empirical question like those faced in any science all the time. 2) Some Christians say evolution can't have happened because that would mean God didn't create living things. There are whole movements in Christianity right now that are dominated by the claim that if naturalistic explanations for life are true, then God is out of the picture. I hope you'll agree that a biologist making that assumption is in dangerous territory while considering the evidence for evolution.
Psalm 104 destroys that assumption. It's simply not true that those things about life that have been explained naturally have thereby been removed from God's oversight or responsibility. Soaking in Psalm 104 helped me to finally stop worrying about what I might find while examining the living world, because whatever I find there already belongs to him.
But one last thing, and an explanation for the title of this talk. This notion that a naturally explainable phenomenon is not in God's purview ought to be laughable on its face. So where did it come from, and why is it still so strong? Why was I worried that evolution could eliminate God as Creator?
Don't have time to explore that now, but suffice it to say that some enemies of our faith (and quite a few confused Christians) are deliberately repeating and defending this nonsense, painting a picture of a God who gets smaller every time another scientific experiment is completed. It seems to me that there's been a robbery. Something rightfully God's, and ours, has been stolen.
So what should we do? Well, this is where my journey as a Christian biologist is now. It's not so much that I want people to accept evolutionary theory. I want us, as Christians, to see God as the ruler and sustainer of creation, however it might be ruled and sustained.
You're probably all too young to know much of anything about Charles Manson. He was a homicidal maniac back in the 1970's, and a famous book about him and his followers got its title from a Beatles song that Manson incorporated somehow into his wickedness. The song is called "Helter Skelter." On U2's Rattle and Hum album, you'll find a recording of "Helter Skelter" from 1987 (right around the year some of you were born). Bono introduces the song like this: "This is a song Charles Manson stole from the Beatles. We're stealing it back." This is how, reflecting on Psalm 104, I see part of my mission as a Christian biologist. Opponents of our faith stole the reverent study of the biological world from the church. We're stealing it back.
...so our response to the living world can be like that of the Psalmist after considering God's creation:
I will sing to the LORD all my life; I will sing praise to my God as long as I live.
– Psalm 104:33, TNIV
79 comments:
Thanks for opening up comments on this post.
I think you're glossing over the thing about evolution that troubles Christians the most. At least this is what troubles me most.....
It's not that evolution rules out God. You're right, of course, that it does not. It's what it says about God that's troubling.
If evolution is true, then it means that God chose a way to create our world that, while certainly very clever, is also fraught with suffering, death and extinction. And this went on for millions of years before original sin could take the blame.
Also, I worry about what your analysis of medical cures says about God, too. I think it means that God stands idly by and watches millions of years of death and disease until a human evolves that is clever enough to cure it.
I'm fine with that, but it makes me wonder why we spend so much time imploring God for individual cures and relief from suffering when the precedent would favor the conclusion that God is unlikely to intervene at all. I think that leaves us with wishful thinking when suffering does end and with attributing it to God's cleverness when Jonas Saulk finally gets around to curing polio.
That's certainly not the orthodoxy espoused by your original audience for this piece.
What's the difference between a God who chooses not to intervene to alleviate suffering, a God who doesn't care enough to intervene to alleviate suffering, and a God that is a figment of our wishful thinking imaginations?
I read your response at Clashing Culture where you address this somewhat. But I'm still struggling with your rationale.
You said this:
The point, though, is that there’s something very odd about looking at creation, judging it to be unworthy in some ways, then concluding that it couldn’t have been created by God. This is tantamount to proclaiming that you actually know how God should have done His work.But today you said this:
God thinks it's cool. He gets delight from it, rides around on it. He rejoices in it. To enter the examination of God's creation is to share God's delight in what he has made. It's his creation. He made it. He thinks it's great.It seems to me like on the one hand you draw some nice conclusions about God when you study nature. But when I study nature, I draw some troubling conclusions about God. How does one reconcile these? How do you know when it's OK to draw conclusions about God and when it's not?
If I make bold claims about what God wants for individual humans today (and Calvin College's espoused theology certainly does this), how do we square this with what we have discovered about how God dealt with all the conscious beings in antiquity?
Either original sin caused all the suffering in the world, or the Heidelberg Catechism is simply wrong.
If we can't prescribe motives to God for the millions of years before recorded history, then how can we do it now?
I would love to see some of your colleagues at Clashing Culture chime in about this.
I do not know what your comments are like in relation to the creation as depicted in Genesis. I would assume that you, being an evolutionist, do not believe in a literal 6 day creation as depicted in Genesis.
It can surely be said that there are parts of the Bible that are literal, Jesus existence being one of those very things. If one part of the Bible can be taken as literal then we must be very careful when we choose to call something figurative. I am by no means saying that we should be ignorant of science. We should carefully analyze what ever evidence we have and decide from that whether or not a conclusive arguement can be made.
To my knowledge there is no conclusive scientific proof that a literal 6 day creation is hogwash. The only way you can toss rocks at a literal 6 day creation is merely by philosophical means and not scientific evidence.
I would assume that you deny the existence of Adam? What is your response to the genealogy listed in Luke 3:23-38? If you accept the existence of Christ but discount the existence of Adam you must believe there to be a break down in the genealogy. Do you have any thoughts as to where real names become metaphorical characters?
Hi Steve,
Excellent ... and not just because I'm biased to anything with a good U2 mention :-). Reclaiming creation from "creationists" and science for the Creator is very important - probably critical for Christianity remaining relevant in the scientific age. Thanks for this.
Regarding the weird debate, there is much to commend in RBH's posts (including his second one with a partial retraction) on panda's thumb. Even if our fundamental worldviews are miles apart, and he believes many of us evolutionary creationists torment ourselves reconciling our faith with science you have got to respect his
approach & positive interaction. I'm not sure PZ et al understand that their constant religion bashing is really very counterproductive is fixing science education.
Hi Steve,
Thanks for posting. This issue has really been on my heart recently and your words were encouraging.
Pither--- The problem of evil is certainly a tough one. I would challenge you to examine your assumptions. Yes, suffering, death, and extinction are tough things, but the bottom line is that God created a universe where this was possible. In our human ways we hold a person responsible for even creating a hazardous condition (e.g., an open pit), even if they don't actually push someone into it. We can fault God, or challenge our assumptions. I prefer a more St Augustinian model--the creation of light by necessity creates the possibility of darkness.
It is tempting to want to paint God's actions today in all bright colors--but there is a dark side too. Jesus did not heal all the sick. He did not abolish death--and he let a friend (Lazarus) suffer and die while his sisters anguished and grieved. It was to glorify God, but don't tell me this was all happy stuff--even Jesus cried at the time.
John Doe--I would be interested to hear your definition of "conclusive scientific proof". Could someone prove to you that the earth is not flat based on your criteria? If you are serious about this I suggest you study the Cosmic Microwave Background (CMB) or ask someone to explain it to you. It's tough to reconcile it with a 6000 year old earth--and it was predicted before it was observed, a very scientific way to do things.
I totally agree that the genealogies present a clear problem in Biblical interpretation if we move away from a literal interpretation. In Genesis there is a clear shift in narrative style after Genesis chapter 11, so I think that is one reasonable place to have a transition from allegorical to historical in the text.
-- Vance
Vance:
Yes you could prove that the world is not flat with my criteria.
Do all creationists assume the world to be 6000 years old? The Bible surely doesn't state that. Someone may say that Adam was created on the 6th day and that Gen 5:5 says that Adam live 930 years. From there they then continue to add the ages listed in Genealogies to come to a 6000 year old earth presumably? There was no death before Adam and Eve ate of the tree of KOGAE so why should they age? Is it not possible that Adams age was not 'registered' as starting until after the fall when he would have begun to age towards his death?
Another thought. Genesis 1 states that the Spirit was hovering over the face of the deep. So this mass of 'chaos' is not mentioned how it was created or when it was created etc...
These are a few thoughts. Like I said I still think there is no way to discount a literal 6 day creation using scientific evidence.
The idea of the Big Bang is highly theoretical especially from an atheist standpoint when they theorize about an infinitely small infinitely dense singularity. Does that not break laws of science?
Astrophysicist George F. R. Ellis explains: "People need to be aware that there is a range of models that could explain the observations….For instance, I can construct you a spherically symmetrical universe with Earth at its center, and you cannot disprove it based on observations….You can only exclude it on philosophical grounds. In my view there is absolutely nothing wrong in that. What I want to bring into the open is the fact that we are using philosophical criteria in choosing our models. A lot of cosmology tries to hide that."I'll take a look at the 'transition' in Genesis that you mention a little later.
Vance-
As to the Chapter 11 transition:
I surely am not an OT scholar and have no knowledge of Hebrew nor am I much of a literary critic. I am not exactly sure what you mean though by saying there is a clear shift in narrative style. Chapter 11 ends with a genealogy that ends at Abram. Chapter 12 starts the dialogue between God and Abram. Are you saying that the father of Abram listed in 11 is figurative? As well as all others mentioned in Ch. 11 in the genealogy? What about the genealogies listed in Ch. 4 and 5? Are they purely figurative? How do you interpret the figurative nature listed in those genealogies?
I think the first thing to think about is: Does science offer conclusive evidence to discount the creation as depicted in Genesis?
Another assumed 'proof' by some to disprove the creationist view is distance of stars. We have the simple technique of parallax to determine that certain stars are billions of light years away. Do you think that when God created the sun he was really going to weight 8 min for the sunlight to reach earth? Sounds like something He could have the power to change and probably would. When God said let their be light I imagine that he surely could have and probably would have created photons already on their journey to earth. Same would thus go for the stars.
Steve Matheson > "Opponents of our faith stole the reverent study of the biological world from the church. We're stealing it back."
What is that rhetoric supposed to mean?
Are you suggesting Christians own the study of biology?
Are you suggesting Muslims shouldn't be allowed to study biology?
John Doe,
I would begin assessing the creation account by how well it describes the world as we can observe it today. The primary discrepancy between the Genesis account and the world as we observe it is the solid firmament, (hebrew: raqia) - translated "expanse" in the NIV - said to separate the waters below from those above (Genesis 1:6-8).
The waters above were thought to be a celestial ocean, not clouds. Evidence of this clearly comes from Genesis 1:14-17, in which God sets the sun, moon and stars in the firmament, which separates the upper and lower waters. Additional evidence comes from Psalm 104, in which God is said to build his dwelling place on the waters of the heavens, while the clouds have a separate use as his chariot, and from Job 37, where the skies are said to be hard as a mirror of cast bronze.
There is no evidence of a solid firmament, or of celestial waters. Hence I consider it very doubtful that the Genesis account can be taken literally as a scientifically accurate account of the origins of the universe.
What is your response to the genealogy listed in Luke 3:23-38?That it claims to trace the line of Joseph and is at odds with the genealogy presented in Matthew 1:1-16. I therefore consider it likely that both authors were making use of the genealogical claims for theological reasons, rather than scientific or historical reasons.
AMW-
Making an arguement like: "We don't have evidence, so it doesn't exist" doesn't sound like a scientific arguement. Much more philosophical I would think. If no one has ever seen the Lochness monster ever does that mean that it doesn't exist? Surely not but a guess can be made that one doesn't exist but it can not be proven a fact. With this type of arguement one could also say: "Well we never found the Cherubims that are guarding the tree of life so surely the Bible is figurative." Would God forever keep the tree of life forever within human reach? Is it not possible that God would have destroyed the garden and that would be why we haven't found the cherubims and flaming sword?
Setting aside possible differences in interpretations I can still throw out an idea that fits under the interpretation you put forth.
If we accept that there was this celestial body of water at creation and it can not be viewed now is it not possible that it is gone? Well where did it go? God is omniscient so foreseeing the flood he could have simply created this celestial body knowing that he was going to have to use it 6 chapters later.
Genesis 7:11b "and the floodgates of the heavens were opened."
As to your response toward the genealogies:
Matthew doesn't list any further back then Abraham (formerly Abram, Gen 17:5) and if I remember correctly Luke and Matthew are identical until king David. So you are accusing that the error (a switch from fictional characters to real humans takes place between King David and Jesus) Interestingly enough though there have been 2 (only 2 too my knowledge) sources outside of the Bible that corroborate with an existence of king David, the mesha stele and the tel dan stele. Yet that doesn't really address the difference in names though. Yet your arguement was that the error was between David and Jesus yet if David existed then your arguement needs some reworking. Back to the names... Chronicles mentions 4 children that King David had with Bathsheba (Shammua, Shobab, Nathan and Solomon) 1 Chr 3:5
Luke lists from King David to Nathan. Matthew lists from King David to Solomon. Then they continue on in their own descending families from Solomon and Nathan presumably. Luke 3:23 says: "Now Jesus himself was about thirty years old when he began his ministry. He was the son, so it was thought, of Joseph" Many scholars, to my knowledge assume that Luke recounted the genealogy from Mary's side of the family. 'He was the son, so it was thought, of Joseph' Why was it thought that he was the son of Joseph? Because Joseph was Mary's husband. Yet the human side must have been traced through the mother Mary. Matthew would have been recounting the fathership line of Jesus though not the biological father. Notice how the line mentioned in Luke leads back to God the father. Whom put the seed in Mary. I don't have time to really build on this more but I hope what I have written will suffice.
Steve Martin wrote
Even if our fundamental worldviews are miles apart, and he believes many of us evolutionary creationists torment ourselves reconciling our faith with science you have got to respect his approach & positive interaction. Well, "torment" may have been a little strong (I was on a roll over the weekend!). But it is surely the case that there's no little intellectual effort involved in the reconciliation. I do respect that effort, even though, as Steve says, our fundamental worldviews are miles apart. And I am always glad for the opportunity to participate when I think I have something to offer.
It may be of interest to you that I lectured yesterday in a philosophy of religion class at the college at which I'm a visiting prof of biology this year, and I recommended both blogs -- Quintessence of Dust and An Evangelical Dialogue -- along with some of Lamoureax's writings to the students to give them a clear picture of the emerging evolutionary creationism movement in evangelical Christianity. At least a couple of the students in that class are struggling with the reconciliation, and I thought that'd be helpful to them.
Hi John Doe,
I really like your observation that Genesis doesn't specify when the age "clock" started running for Adam. The time in the Garden after the creation week and the fall does seem to be indeterminate. My impression is that most people that adhere to a literal interpretation usually come up with an approximately 6000 year old universe, but you've shown that isn't the only literal reading of the text.
I agree that science can't disprove that a literal 6 day creation occurred. I believe God certainly could have done it that way--however the scientific evidence suggests gradual changes over a long period of time. I also agree that there is an element of philosophy to how the evidence is interpreted, but in my opinion true science moves to design experiments that try to prove or disprove the current theories and objectively reject those that don't pass the test.
You mentioned George Ellis--I suspect his model does not predict the spatial variations in the CMB that some of the Big Bang models did predict. The match between the data and their predictions is very impressive. I disagree that this is just a matter of philosophy--I think theories which predict better should get preference.
You suggested that the singularity of the Big Bang breaks the laws of science. I would claim that science has no unbreakable "laws"--in fact I think we can safely say that all of our scientific theories are in some sense wrong, because there is evidence they currently can't explain (e.g., dark energy, matter / anti-matter asymmetry). It is fair to then say why bother with them, but in spite of their flaws they enable us to produce technologies, drugs, and material that we seem to find useful.
If you are not interested in evidence I don't have a big problem with that, but I think Rom 1:20 does suggest we should pay attention to what we can perceive from what has been made.
With regards to the genealogies, I agree that saying there is a "clear shift" in style between Gen 11 and the story of Abram is overstating things. To me the story of Abram has much more the feel of place. Wives have names, and there is dialog between husband and wife.
Proposing where to cut the line on the genealogies reminds me of the problem of saying when does a pile of rocks not become a pile? A hundred rocks on top of each other is clearly a pile, one or two rocks clearly aren't a pile--where is the transition?
-- Vance
I am not a biology nor astronomy nor any other type of science expert just because I am not does not mean that I am not willing to hear the evidence. What I have presumed though is that any evidence that is put forth can still fit under a literal 6 day creation. How many times has science witnessed and recorded a miracle? Probably never, though does that stop you from believing in them (water to wine, people risen from the dead etc...) I would hope not. All observations in science as well as evidence of consistent laws shows us that 'miracles' are not 'possible'. On the topic of miracles I'm going to back away from science and lean toward my faith in God. I also do that in regards to 'evolution'. Why believe in it just because science seems to show that it is the only way?
I think this also relates to the genealogies because they can be used as an evidence to a literal translation.
As to what you say about cutting a line in the genealogies with your example of the pile of rocks. The transition between 'not a pile of rocks' and 'a pile of rocks' is exactly where you define a pile of rocks. If a 'pile of rocks' is 15 rocks then 14 must be defined as something less then a 'pile of rocks'. Surely there is a specific line in the genealogy that you must presume to be a figurative person. No one can be half historical half metaphorical. If you believe that Jesus Christ existed but Adam did not then you must assume that there is a specific break in the line of names. Then ofcourse the following question is "Well who was their father? Why do they have a fake father?"
Hi John Doe, I continue to be interested in how you evaluate evidence in order to determine if it is "conclusive scientific proof". Could someone prove to you that the earth orbits the sun based on your criteria?
Vance-
Yes one could make that proof based on my criteria. I'm not asking for some sort of ridiculous rules of proof. When I say conclusive I am asking for evidence that would fully disprove a literal 6 day creation on "scientific" grounds.
Maybe I could try to show that my leap of faith believing in the literal creation is just as much a leap of faith as one whom chooses the evolutionary route.
Hi John Doe, If God did choose to make the universe in 6 literal days I don't see any way science could disprove it--because that would be disproving reality.
What concerns me is that the vast majority of the evidence does not suggest a 6 24-hour day creation event, nor does the vast majority of the evidence support a world wide flood a few thousand years ago. Why would God seem to allow nature to deceive us?
By the way, I agree that believing in evolution requires a considerable leap of faith. I think the theory, especially with the advent of DNA analysis, is making impressive progress, but there certainly are a lot of tough questions remaining without great answers.
-- Vance
Vance-
I wish I could speak to more evidences towards a folly of figurative interpretation written in the Bible. I have already mentioned genealogies which I certainly believe is one large question that must be reconciled. It basically is accusing Moses of deceiving and Luke and Matthew of bad historical analysis.
I could turn the same question back around to you. Why would God allow Moses to write a figurative account? Anyone before scientific research believed falsely of the origin of the world as they would have had the evidence that you speak of. Once this 'truth' is revealed to the public it automatically requires a higher intellect to know the 'truth' of the origin of the world.
I see no reason within the text of the Bible to believe in a figurative interpretation, in fact I see evidences of a literal interpretation (genealogies being the 1 mentioned).
Until the supporting evidences listed in the Bible can be reconciled by those who 'call fake'. I, seeing no scientific evidence to disprove a literal creation can not in good conscious lean towards a theory that is straying away from the Bible to seek other answers when many questions have not been answered.
Making that retraction on faith is one step down the wrong road.
When all evidences have been lain out on the table for both views can one truly choose evolution? Or is there a push from the atheistic scientific community. I see no reason to change my beliefs and I surely will not be pressured into unwillingly choosing to make exceptions.
John Doe,
A literal six-day creation can't be "disproved" on scientific grounds because of the appearance of age argument. There is always the possibiity that God created the entire cosmos in 6-days, and gave it the appearance of natural development over a 13.7 billion-year period. Such a notion can't be disproven. Any evidence to the contrary might just be part of the apparent reality and not part of the authentic reality. How would we know the difference?
The reason why a scientist uses a given paradigm and not others has little to do with philosohpy (in most cases). Whether that paradigm be big-bang cosmology, old-earth geology, stratigraphy, common descent, gravitation, or atomic theory, the reason we have consensus in the scientific community is not just to lock up "scientific truth" in a box and put on a mantle somewhere.
The usefulness of a good scientific idea does not lie in its ability to explain what we already know (or what we already can observe), but in its ability to tell us what to look for and where to look next. In other words, a good theory must be able to make testable predictions that, if confirmed, extend our knowledge into new territory. Scientist don't accept the theory of gravitation, for instance, because it can't be disproved. They accept it because it helps plan missions into outer space with exacting precision!
If we make 6-day creation into a scientific paradigm, then it fails to make any predictions that turn out to be true. If avoid this embarrassing fact by adding the "appearence of age" doctrine to it, then it fails to make any predictions whatsoever. So you can see why no practicing scientist would touch it with a 10-foot pole. There is simply no utility in it.
To put it another way: there is no problem in any field of science that requires a 6-day creation theory, or an appearence of age theory, to solve it. The only people who cling to it do so for theological/hermeneutical reasons.
You might be skeptical of things like dark matter/dark energy. But the difference is there are real problems in cosmology that can be addressed by postulating the existence of these elusive substances. After all, that's how the "problem" of Neptune's orbit was once addressed -- by postulating the existence of an elusive planet beyond its orbit. Nobody had directly observed this planet, but it had to exist in order to make sense of Neptune's orbit! And this idea was good enough to enable astronomers to estimate what the orbit of this phantom planet should look like. When it was finally discovered, it was called Uranus.
Theories about dark matter and dark energy are just as important -- they are place-holders for something that doesn't quite add up. Someday, we will either discover that they really do exist, or we will discover problems with our cosmology. But either way, that is how science advances.
And by the way, if there really were waters above the firmament, then they would have also been above the sun, moon and stars -- according the Genesis 1:16-18. Therefore, they could not have been the source of the Noahic flood waters. Moroever, when God commanded it stop raining, he "closed the windows of heaven" leaving the rest of the waters in place. The Pslams and Job both lived after Noah and make multiple references to this heavenly ocean.
Now what's the more probable explanation: That there really is a heavenly ocean above the sun, moon, and stars? Or that the biblical authors were simply describing the cosmos as they, their audience, and every other educated person in the Ancient Near-East would have described it?
Well, Gordon's comment renders some of mine redundant. But I already composed it, so here I go anyway.
Making an arguement like: "We don't have evidence, so it doesn't exist" doesn't sound like a scientific arguement. Much more philosophical I would think.Then allow me to amend. We have good evidence that the sun, moon and stars are not stuck in a solid dome. Their non-stuck-in-a-dome-ness is something we can observe with our senses. Ergo it is scientific.
If we accept that there was this celestial body of water at creation and it can not be viewed now is it not possible that it is gone? Well where did it go? God is omniscient so foreseeing the flood he could have simply created this celestial body knowing that he was going to have to use it 6 chapters later.The question of course would then be where it went? The Psalmist presumes that the water went right back to the celestial ocean above the firmament. But again, there's no evidence of water engulfing the universe, and there is evidence that the firmament does not exist.
Would God forever keep the tree of life forever within human reach? Is it not possible that God would have destroyed the garden and that would be why we haven't found the cherubims and flaming sword?The problem is, this line of reasoning can demonstrate anything. God is capable of doing anything He likes, then making all evidence of it disappear. So I'm genuinely curious: what evidence (or lack thereof) would compel you to accept that the Genesis account is non-literal?
As for your interpretation of Luke, you have no textual grounds to argue that he is referring to the line of Mary. He clearly says that Joseph was "the son of Heli." Matthew says that Joseph's father was named Jacob. For your argument to be true, Jacob would have to be the son-in-law of Heli. But the same word for "son" is used in both passages. Moreover, it's not as though Luke didn't have a word for "in-law" to use. He explicitly makes reference to Peter's mother in-law (Luke 4:38), and quotes Jesus as saying that "daughter-in-law will turn against mother-in-law" (Luke 12:53). It strains credulity to claim that even though he refers to Joseph as the son of Heli, and even though Mary is not mentioned in the passage at all, and even though Luke had access to, and in other passages used, language connoting relation through marriage, he in fact meant that Joseph was the son in-law of Heli.
As I said above, a simpler, more likely explanation for the divergence between Matthew and Luke's genealogies is that they had different theological emphases to make. And if we accept that their genealogies are not necessarily literal, the genealogies of Genesis need not be, either.
Hi John Doe, Regarding your question of my answer to: "Why would God allow Moses to write a figurative account?"--my response is that I don't know, and this issue really bugs me.
I respect your position that you will continue to hold to your literal interpretation--until I assume someone can show you a way to reconcile the Biblical narrative with the scientific narrative.
Circling back to the original post that started this discussion. I think the position you hold is shared by many, and the result is an ongoing, and increasing schism between the "Literal Interpreters", and the "Science trumps Genesis" crowd. Increasingly I see many of the "Literal Interpreters" (but not you) taking the position that science is the enemy, or that most scientists are dishonestly twisting the evidence to promote an atheistic agenda. Of course some are, but I see the vast majority just analyzing the evidence and trying to come up with theories that match the data (and hoping to win a Nobel price in the process).
My interest in this conversation with you has primarily been to understand your position, and you have graciously answered my questions. If you don't mind, yet another question. A literal interpretation of the Bible would suggest a stationary earth, with the Sun orbiting around it. What process have you gone through to enable you to interpret these verses figuratively?
A question for all:
Do you accept that Jesus performed miracles? Science shows us that miracles 'do not happen'. The only source you have is the Bible that notes that Jesus performed miracles. Why have you restrained from saying that 'Jesus' miracles were figurative?' It violates all known scientific data. I see no difference between a case of miracles and a case of a literal 6 day creation. Your thoughts?
Gordon J. Glover-
There are many things in the Bible that science has no use for but that does not make the truth of them any less known. Examples being heaven, hell, angels, demons, miracles etc...
I offered the flood example as an on the spot thought never having conceived the notion in my mind before.
Your question of whether it is feasible that the authors described things as they viewed then I will mention in more detail in my response to Vance.
AMW-
We can not know that the Psalmist is referring to the same thing or even if he is it can not be known that he is referring in the same way that Moses had written. I will explain more in my response to Vance.
What would compel me to accept the account as non-literal? If Moses had written in the text that it was figurative. Is that too much to ask, I certainly do not think so. Jesus says in John 16:25 that he is speaking figuratively. There truly is no dividing line that can be shown in Genesis where one can make a strong argument of a beginning of a literal translation and even that brings up questions about the passages mentioned before it.
I think you reject the interpretation of Joseph being called the 'son' way to quickly. I am no Biblical scholar so I use various commentaries as well as lexicon's, old translations etc... when I make the large part of comments towards old translations yet nonetheless here I go. If we look at the 1550 Stephens Textus Receptus it would appear that Matthew uses a word to denote “begat” as rendered in the King James Version. Yet in the book of Luke in the Textus Receptus there is no Greek words that would translate to “the son” it is written like: “Joseph of Eli of Matthat of Levi...” This happens to be the only Greek version I have at hand right now so I can't yet look into nor speak to other variations. It would be interesting to see what the Codex Vaticanus. I did read a bit ago of a non biblical source that mentions “Eli the father of Mary” though I can't really extrapolate on this (as that would require much searching) at this moment though I surely will in the future.
Vance-
A literal interpretation of the Bible would suggest a stationary earth, with the Sun orbiting around it. What process have you gone through to enable you to interpret these verses figuratively? You haven't given me any verses to respond specifically too so I will assume various ones which I have in mind and respond generally. First of all do you not use terms like “sun set” and “sun rise” in your daily vocabulary? Surely you do, they are easy terms that get the meaning across even though they aren't meant as literal and everyone surely knows that. I do not say that those whom are speaking of a stand still earth are acting in this way but just offer the idea of that up for thought.
What I want to make a point is the difference between Moses' text of the creation and any other Psalmist whom references a stationary earth or even a celestial body of water.
Moses did not witness the creation account and I think it ridiculous to accuse him of completely creating this fictitious story, if that is your standpoint then I'll have to appeal to that later. I believe that God in some form communicated the creation story to Moses be it through direct dictation, dream or what ever other way the story may have come but that it was received to Moses from God. A Psalmist on the other hand was not directly instructed to write as they did. When a Psalmist speaks of a stand still earth, helio-centric universe or a celestial body of water I would be quite convinced that it is their knowledge attained through direct observation of that which they are describing.
Moses did not witness this celestial body of water nor any other part of the creation. It all comes down to whether you believe that God communicated and allowed Moses to from His (God's) means of communication write down a fictitious metaphorical account or a literal historical account. So there is quite a big difference between the creation story and the psalmists view as their means of attaining inspiration from God greatly differ.
John Doe,
I accept that Jesus both performed miracles, and was raised from death to life, which was also a miracle. I accept the accounts of these events, as written in the scriptures, on faith that Jesus was who he said he was and therefore had the power and authority to do what was attributed to him -- not because any of this can be scientifically or historically proved or disproved. If Jesus was not God, then he obviously could not have done those things that were attributed to Him -- as you have correctly pointed out.
This is quite different from 6-day creation. Not only is there no evidence for a recently created earth over a period of six days, but all of the available evidence absolutely points to the contrary (appearence-of-age notwithstanding).
You might say that we should accept 6-day creation on faith, just as we do the miracles of Christ. But faith is simply the evidence of things unseen, not an excuse to dismiss that which is staring us in the face. In other words, faith allows Christians to accept that which lies beyond the emperical -- beyond scientific and historical certainty. Faith does not justify belief in that which is patently and demonstrably false.
I don't disagree with your statement "There are many things in the Bible that science has no use for but that does not make the truth of them any less known." And you would probably not disagree with me when I say that science is not the only means by which we have to express or convey truth.
As for Moses, I agree with you that he did not write down a ficticious or metaphorical account. In fact, he described the structure and operation of the cosmos just as both he and his immediate audience would have certainly understood it, having been educated according to the various Egyptian creation stories (being 500-year residents of Egypt).
You have to understand that whatever science we find the scriptures represents the best, most up-to-date science of the day. This doesn't make it "non-literal" but it does make "non-applicable" to the science we practice today. Therefore, we can't rely on statements about the structure, operation, or formational history of the cosmos as authoritative for our time.
For instance, when the Psalmist writes that the "earth does not move" (Psalm 93:1) or that that the sun is "like a bridgroom coming forth from his pavilion, like a champion rejoicing to run his course; [rising] at one end of the heavens and [making] its circuit to the other" (Psalm 19:4-6) -- these are not figurative statements, because both the Psalmist and his audience would have understood them to be literal.
In fact, all Christians (and all educated people for that matter)did understand them to be literal until the middle of the 17th century. If you have any doubt about this, check out any biblical commentary by John Calvin or Martin Luther (or anyone else who lived prior to Galileo). My point is that when we speak of "sunrise" or "sunset" today, we know that we are using a literary device -- just as Isaiah did when we spoke of "trees with clapping hands" (55:10). But if we also understand that the authors were simply praising God using the science of their time, then we don't have to play hermeneutical games with the biblical text. We can simply acknowledge God's wisdom in allowing the biblical authors to express his timeless word through the timely cosmology of his people.
Gordon J. Glover-
I'm not expecting science to offer more evidence what I wish for the theistic evolutionist to do is try their best to reconcile the science with the Bible.
Can your theory that Moses was describing the creation in terms that are more understandable to people of that time be only justified by scientific evidence, do you have any Biblical evidence? Can you swallow God creating a creation that takes billions of years before it can consciously thank him? What are your thoughts on other parts of the OT, where do you draw the figurative/literal line?
Do you accept that Moses received information from God on what to write for the creation story? (be it in the form of visions, dictation etc...) He wasn't there so he either made it up or God told him. So would you say that God would have truthfully told Moses about evolution but told him to write the creation story? Or would you say that Moses was told that the creation story was truth by God? If the first then why would God have not said for Moses to write it in an apparently figurative way. If the latter you would assume that God just lied to Moses? Where do you call foul on the genealogies? I would say that the genealogies are a large push towards a literal rendering unless you are going to accuse Matthew as well as Luke and the author of Chronicles as well as other books as lying or being bad historians.
Surely it is likely that the Psalmists believed the earth to be circled by the sun because they only had their own eyes to inform them of this. But Moses had the instruction of God to tell him what to write for the creation account because he himself wasn't there. It isn't a matter of Moses perception of the world because he couldn't have been there to witness a celestial body, God had to have told him to write about that which is mentioned.
I personally can not speak much to science as I haven't studied into the subjects. But isn't that interesting, that to understand the science of it I have to dedicate a large portion of my time to fully understand creation from your view. So then from your point of view most Christians won't understand how creation actually happened until they get to heaven.
I'm curious as to where you call foul on the genealogies, the insignificance of creation to God during the first 13.699999 billions years of its existence, and where you start rendering the OT as literal.
John Doe,
Let me try another line of reasoning...
In Genesis 1:6 Moses describes the ancient firmament that was believed to support the heavenly waters and the heavens themselves. He clearly says in verse 7 that the firmament (or "expanse" in some translations) separates two bodies of water: the waters above and the waters below. He clearly says in verse 8 that this expanse is the sky.
On the 4th day, God creates the sun, moon and stars (verse 16). God says twice (verse 14 and 17) that these heavenly bodies were placed in the firmament, or sky -- below the upper waters.
How do you deal with this? Clearly, the ancient domed sky, below which were the heavenly bodies and above which were the heavenly waters, is scientifically false from a modern point of view. But it was an absolutely essential element of ancient near-eastern cosmology. In other words, it was understood to be a literal and necessary structure for thousands of years.
God obviously did not reveal to Moses anything scientifically new about the structure or operation of the physical cosmos. There is no mention of planets, galaxies, microbes, or of anything else not already known at the time.
What makes the Hebrew creation story different from the pagan versions is its monotheism. The pagan creation myths were grossly polytheistic. This was obviously God's focus: to correct the theological record and leave the ancient scientific understanding in tact (until such time as people figured these things out on their own). A 21st century portrait of the cosmos would have been absolutely useless to the Hebrews as they wandered through the wilderness.
Consider also the creation account in Genesis 2. In the first chapter, man is created last. In the second chapter, man is created before plants, birds and land animals. Lastly, eve is created. Clearly, you can't build a consistent chronology of natural history using Scripture alone. But if we realize that science/history is not the point of the Hebrew creation narrative, then we don't have to force the text to answer modern questions about the structure, operation and formational history of the world God created.
Surely it is scientifically false from a modern point of view because there is no such thing. I understand the kind of argument you are using and I'm telling you it gets us no where. You can only theorize that Moses thought it was literal when it was really figurative. I can only theorize that Moses knew it was literal and for some reason God removed it from existence as well as the Garden of Eden etc...
You can not substantiate your claim scientifically and your attempts to substantiate Biblically are not sound. Moses did not perceive the creation story God told him the story.
As to what you say in Ch. 2:
I've said before I am no Bible scholar though you can read what Keil & Delitzsch have to say:
“...we must not understand the words as meaning that there was neither shrub nor herb before the rain and dew, or before the creation of man...”
I don't want to quote everything that is commented on as it is quite lengthy but surely you can read it yourself.
When you mentioned that Adam was created before animals I assume you refer to 2:19, the King James as well as New King James render “formed” yet the NIV renders it “had formed”. John Gill as well as K & D will also speak to this in their commentaries.
I have done my best to respond to your questions posed towards me; you have yet to respond to my challenge of reconciling the genealogies.
John Doe,
So you agree that Moses gives us a portrait of the physical cosmos that doesn't exist today? Great! Now let this fact sink in: the portrait of creation he does give us is exactly the one that all education persons, both in Egypt and outside of Egypt, believed for thousands of years. You can find references to it in all Ancient Near-Eastern creation myths, and pictures of this very arrangement are drawn all over the Egyptian ruins.
So what is the more probable explanation: (1) That the cosmos onced looked literaly like this and God somehow changed it prior to modern times, even though there is no biblical or scientific evidence of this? or (2) That Moses was recasting the Hewbrew creation narrative using the most current scientific understanding of his day, which was from a phenomenological rather than an emperical perspective?
Hmmm... Seems pretty clear to me. Moses thought it was literal because it was literal! And we can still read it literally as long as we understand that God allowed Moses to use (ancient) "contemporary" science to make his theological points. After all, telling the creation story using a 21st century portrait of creation would have been useless. Not only would it have distracted them from the theological message of monotheism, but it probably would have completely ruined Moses' credibility with the grumbling post-Exodous Hebrews.
Why not accept God's obvious method of inspiration? Why do you insist that God dictated a scientifically-correct creation narrative to Moses? Where does it say this in the Bible? Clearly, if one approaches the Scriptures without any preconcived notions of how God inspried the human authors to write, one can see that God not only used fallible man, but fallible man's language, cultural beliefs, and cosmology.
You've mentioned on several occasions that you're "not well informed scienticially" or are "not a biblical scholar" etc...
Fine, we all can't be experts in everyting. So why don't you at least spend some time eduacating yourself on these topics before jumping to misinformed conclusions. After all, many of those who are "bible scholars" or "scientists" hold these exact views I'm sharing with you.
I personally don't care about the geanologies one way or the other. If you follow the thread, you were discussing these with other folks. I was simply trying to help you see that the science contained the bible is ancient science and we today are not bound to accept it as God's authoritative teaching on the structure, operation, and formational history of the world we inhabit.
Gordon Glover-
It seems as though you have come to a conclusion that satisfies you built on this alone.
I chose to accept the rendering of a literal body of water just to make things simple instead of quibbling over translating the text. I think your argument holds possibly more ground if interpreted under a literal body of ethereal water rather then clouds etc...which can still be a literal rendering of the original text. But it must be known that that is not the only interpretation some scholars view it as a poetical way to describe the literal clouds in the sky while maintaining a literal view of creation.
Even when the only interpretation that you choose to take is a literal ethereal body of water above the sky you still are blatantly disregarding other arguments as well as other proofs to render a literal interpretation of the entire creation story. You choose to instead, it would seem, base your entire case of a figurative account of the creation story on 1 interpretation of 1 verse of the 1st chapter of Genesis. We haven't even begun to discuss other interpretations of that 1 verse as well as other verses along with supporting genealogies. Is this 1 interpretation of this 1 verse truly your linchpin? The question isn't where does it say that it is a scientifically accurate account, the question is where does it not say it is a scientifically accurate account. The Bible's default should be a literal interpretation until proven otherwise, some things are easier proved then others. I feel that you haven't even come close to suggesting a figurative interpretation and that is because you base everything off of 1 interpretation of 1 verse and then you theorize about things related to that interpretation.
I don't agree with your opinion on how one can come to that opinion on how God inspired man to write the Bible.
I haven't jumped to any misinformed conclusions, how is one to learn unless one questions? I currently hold a creationist view and one way to educate ones self is to engage in dialogue with someone who shares a different view. I can't say that I hold a creationist view in an absolute sense as I can not personally speak to all aspects of the creationist view as I am still learning.
Yes, I know you haven't responded at all to the genealogies though I surely would wish to here your thoughts. If you choose to base your beliefs on one interpretation of one verse then surely I can't convince you otherwise using outside approaches. In the end, I don't think that is a very good way to come to a conclusion.
John Doe,
I'm afraid there is no way that these waters can be clouds, water vapor, or an ante-dilluvian canopy -- they are above the sun, moon and stars! Read the text again. They can not be atmospheric, unless you believe (as the ancients did) that the heavenly bodies were also part of earth's atmosphere or sky. You can't wiggle out this.
And you are still missing my point so I'll say it again. I BELIEVE THAT THE GENESIS CREATION ACCOUNT IS A LITERAL ACCOUNT!!!! Is that clear enough for you? I do not believe it is figurative, allegorical, or metaphorical. Moses describes the pysical cosmos very literally -- just as he and his audience would have understood it.
YOU ARE THE ONE WHO IS NOT BEING LITERAL BECUASE YOU INSIST THAT THE WATERS ABOVE THE SUN, MOON AND STARS ARE VAPOR OR CLOUDS, EVEN THOUGH MOSES DID NOT USE THE WORD FOR MIST, VAPOR OR CLOUDS! AND YOU KEEP INSISTING THAT THIS WATER IS SOMETHING ATMOSPHEREIC EVEN THOUGH IT IS ABOVE THE CELESTIAL OBJECTS!
Keep asking questions. I applaud the fact that you are least willing to consider other viewpoints.
Gordon Glover-
You seem to be getting a little more worked up about this then you should be. (my assumption with the all capitals paragraph)
Myself offering other views of the verse has gotten us no where so I find it simpler to for the sake of argument to accept your position and show you it is far from conclusive. I would surely not accept there is only your one view of this verse but like I said that has gotten us no where.
So let us assume that God told Moses to write this dome of a sky the way he did. Surely it would be difficult to explain how the sky really is and how the earth, sun and stars really exist in the atmosphere to all the Jews. Though to then go from this and assume the entire rest of the creation account is figurative (believing humans evolved from animals etc...) is going way to far and certainly can not be justified from your 'conclusion' made about the firmament in the sky. Especially since you are only using this one idea to prove everything else as figurative in the creation story and blatantly disregarding any text in the Bible that would render a literal interpretation. Primarily speaking, genealogies.
John Doe,
As long as you keep incorrectly accusing me of interpreting Genesis as figurative, this conversation can't move forward. Despite me saying over and over again that MOSES SPOKE LITERALLY -- EVEN USING CAPITAL LETTER TO EMPHASIZE MY POINT, you still have it in your head that I'm trying to interpret Scripture as figurative or allegorical.
Let me say it one last time: Moses described the structure, operation, and formational history of the physical world literally as he and everybody else at the time understood it to be. I don't know how to say this any clearer.
Gordon J. Glover-
I am sorry that we are getting lines crossed.
I'm pretty sure I understand what you are saying. I think one thing now that can be realized is that there are more then one literal way to interpret the passage. Your stance, I gather, is that God told Moses to write exactly as he did in Genesis so that the Israelites would understand the creation story in a more understandable way. So this is Moses literally being told to write a figurative/metaphorical narrative.
Another literal interpretation, which I mentioned earlier, is that God literally told Moses to write the account that he did and it was a scientifically accurate account. i.e. the celestial body of water now does not exist.
But lets go with your view. A literal dictation by God to Moses that represents a figurative account. Please let us continue with you responding to my last post to you. The one about drawing conclusions without other sources etc...
"So this is Moses literally being told to write a figurative/metaphorical narrative."
Nope -- you're still not getting it. The Hebrew creation narrative was 100% literal at the time of its writing -- even down to God using his literal voice to speak all things into existence. And why not? Even the Egyptian God Atum had a voice by which he oraganized the primordial formless into a fully-functioning cosmos.
And I don't believe that God's method of biblical inspiration included literal dictation. I'd like to know where you got that notion from. You certainly can't find it within the text of Scripture.
Moreover, the text that we have doesn't look anything like what we should expect if God actually "Faxed" it down to a human "medium" that simply wielded his pen like oija board -- unless we want to charge the Holy Spirit with error.
Rather, when we set aside our own preconcieved ideas of what inspired literature should look like and instead look to the text itself to tell us how God communicates with his people, we will see that God's process of inspriation somehow uses the human author's own words along with his own incidental ideas/concepts.
So when Moses writes about creation, he is giving an account that is literal according to ancient scientific understanding. He is expressing God's divine thoughts in his own clumsy and imperfect human language -- even using the scientific lexicon of the ancient near east.
You can disagree with as I'm sure you do, but that's my position.
Gordon Glover-
Ok sure, I'm tired of restating and having you reject my reading of your interpretation so I'm not going to restate it in my words as it doesn't matter. I'll just quote you:
“So when Moses writes about creation, he is giving an account that is literal according to ancient scientific understanding. He is expressing God's divine thoughts in his own clumsy and imperfect human language -- even using the scientific lexicon of the ancient near east.“ Yes I disagree with you but more then that. I think you are coming to a conclusion without basing it on enough evidence. Even if I hand you the verse on talking about the firmament you can not come to a conclusion that the entire creation story actually varies very far from the scientific view. You choose not to look at other verses that would render towards the creation story as being historical. Adam is created the 6th day and we have genealogies that list his fatherhood to Jesus. You should not come to a conclusion with out weighing all evidence, and that surely is some serious evidence. If you had a goal to convince someone that hamburgers are the best American food and the only American food that you showed them and talked about was hamburgers. Surely that wouldn't be fair as this person only has one food now in mind that is American. If you want to convince them you are going to have to appeal to all the other 'favorite' American foods.
I have moved on from trying to understand your view. (though I think you finally made it clear enough) My point is now that what ever your view is, it isn't based on enough evidence.
Oh I think you hinted at Biblical errors. I'd be curious as to how you show that the word of God has errors not just errors in translation or transcribing.
No hinting is necessary. The errors/contradictions of the biblical text are very well documented -- and this shouldn't suprise us. The bible is a 100% man-made document, just as it also 100% instpired from God. You shouldn't have a hard time comprehending that if you believe that Christ was 100% man and 100% God; and that none of his divinity detracted from his humanity and vice versa.
As for these scientific errors: it's easier to demonstrate that the sky is not a solid dome holding back a heavenly ocean, that the earth is not a flat disk, and that the sun and stars do not orbit the earth, than it is to demonstrate that all of these things were once true.
If these statements are not true, than they are errors - even though were thought to have been true when they were written. Just as the declaration by Christ that the mustard is the smallest seed is scientifically false.
John Doe,
I didn't see your first response. But surely you can't be serious. There is nothing in the creation account that lines up with what we know about cosmology, geology or the diversity of life. And this is based on ALL OF THE AVAILABLE EVIDENCE -- not just the obvious fact that the sky is not a solid dome.
What we know about human migration alone is enough to render the geneaologies scientifically and historically irrelavent. They obviously were not given for either of those purposes.
John Doe,
With regard to the genealogies, I offer a mea culpa on not digging deep enough. I was away from my Greek sources and didn't see that Luke's genealogy doesn't expressly use the word "son." I still think that the contradictions in the genealogies are most likely real, and not just apparent, but I'll grant you that the issue is much more ambiguous than I initially thought. So I'll let it rest. (Maybe this is why Paul warns us so often about bickering over genealogies.)
Gordon Glover-
I don't think I agree with your definition of error. If a poet writes “A face, more radiant then the sun...” are you going to say they have errors in their poem? Surely the metaphorical nature can be seen. Do you really think that Jesus wouldn't know of a smaller seed? Was Jesus not all knowing? He said what he said proverbially and did not attempt to represent science.
Are you sure that your interpretations of the evidence are correct? There are many creationists that interpret the same data that you have and have drawn different conclusions. These creationists include chemists, physicists, geologists, biochemists, biologists, botanists, neuroscientists, astronomers, geophysicists etc...
I have read much at all of this site but feel free to check it out:
http://www.answersingenesis.org/
I would be very interested to see what data of human migration renders the genealogies irrelevant. Maybe you could give me a few links I could check out?
AMW-
I think the reason why Paul warns about bickering over genealogies is because so many people kept lists of their ancestors as to whom had royal blood etc... Which I think is an argument for the validity of the genealogies. Call it a common practice argument if you want, Jews were obsessed with genealogies and would have had a hissy fit if someone recorded and published their family history wrong.
Do you really think that Jesus wouldn't know of a smaller seed? Was Jesus not all knowing? He said what he said proverbially and did not attempt to represent science.From an earlier comment:
The Bible's default should be a literal interpretation until proven otherwise, some things are easier proved then others.Your move.
AMW-
Could you please explain what you wish me to respond to? I'm not exactly sure I know what your getting at.
John Doe,
You first stated that the Bible is to be read literally unless proven otherwise. You then said that Jesus was not speaking literally (i.e., scientifically) but proverbially. There is no textual evidence of this of which I am aware. So why is it we are to believe he was speaking proverbially rather than literally? What proof do you offer?
My suspicion is that you take Jesus figuratively (i.e., proverbially) here because to do otherwise would run counter to the inerrancy of the Bible. But you might prove me wrong.
AMW-
Oh well I think the answer to that was in the text that you quoted me as saying. The rhetorical question of: "Was Jesus not all knowing?".
I ask that rhetorically as I haven't really thought about it much though I lean towards him being all knowing. Forknowledge of Peters denial etc... If you have another question or comment I'd be happy to research and detail more later, no time for long comment right now.
John Doe,
If a poet wrote that, I would still say it was a "scientific error" even though the writer was making tn effort be scientifically correct.
However, I don't see the poetic point in Jesus says that a mustard seed is the smallest seed when there are several types of smaller seed. Yes, his point is about the Kingdom of Heaven and not about the seed per se, but if the Bible is supposed to speak authoritatively on scientific matters (as most creationists claim), than Jesus could have just as easily said that "the Kingdom of heaven is like a moss spore that falls to the ground; it is the smallest of the seeds, but when grown it is the widest of plants, extending across the forest floor, so that tiny creatures come and make thier home in it" (Quote from Dennis Lamoureux).
That statement would made the same point as the original, and it would have been 100% scientifically correct at the same time -- at least as far as we know today. And therin lies the problem with Concordism. Science is only as good as each generations' ability to discover it. Which is why the creation science premise is false. We can't expect the bible to be any more advanced scientifically than the age that committed it to writing. Otherwise, it would have been in error at the time of its writing.
Moreover, the original audience dwelled in an arid environment and probably had no first-hand knowledge of moss spores. For all they knew, the mustard seed was the smallest seed. And that's why Jesus chose to use it in the parable.
And that's why Moses begins creation with a watery abyss and uses a firmament to divide the upper waters from lower waters, and places the heavenly bodies in the firmament between the waters. That was the earliest known cosmology and it lasted well into the 1st Millenium BC (until replaced by Aristotle's cosmology).
If you are interested in the evidence for the scientific evidence of man's geneaological origins based on genetic testing, archaeology, and biogeography, you shoud watch a documentary called "The Journey of Man" -- you can even watch it on YouTube.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OV6A8oGtPc4
If you are looking for sound science, you won't find it at AIG. I suggest the "Answers in Creation" website or the "Talk Origins" archive.
Gordon J. Glover-
But the writer is not in any way making an effort to be scientifically correct. Go to the nearest book store and enter the poetry section. You will notice that there is a lot in all of the poems that you would consider ‘errors’. Yet these ‘errors’ really aren’t errors accept under the definition that you yourself put forth. There really are no rules to poetry just like there are no rules to art. You as an outside source can not go up to a painting and declare and error and expect everyone to except it as a legitimate error. Most likely the ‘error’ that you speak of falls under your own personal definition and then is irrelevant to the outside world. I’m sure you’ve heard of a metaphor: “a figure of speech in which an expression is used to refer to something that it does not literally denote in order to suggest a similarity”. Do you really call metaphor’s errors? If so then there are literally hundreds and hundreds of errors in the Bible. Honestly, if you want to define an error in that manner, by all means do so, but that really doesn’t get us anywhere.
Another thing I just thought of… Did they have moss where Jesus spoke that proverb? If not then maybe a case can be made that the mustard seed was currently the smallest seed there in that town. But I am not trying to make that argument. I wouldn’t wish to reduce the knowledge of Christ to an inept foolish layman on thing unrelated to the church without quite a bit more discussion and research. Something for another time...
Why do you so quickly discount the science presented at AiG? The conclusions drawn don’t agree with your presuppositions and possibly that gives you a false sense of assuredness that you are right and they are wrong? I don’t know but I’m curious as to what grounds you can go to, to disregard claims made by creationist scientists.
Unfortunately I don’t have access to you tube where I am located yet maybe later I can find another source to watch from.
The "science" you'll find at AiG is easily debunked. There is a reason why the scientific community reject just about everything they do -- and it has nothing to do with them being Christians. There are plenty of Christians out there doing legitimate science and they are welcomed in the scientific community. You will not find what AiG calls "science" held by anybody who is not already 100% committed to a 6-day creation no matter how much evidence there is to the contrary. On the other hand, you will find many Christians who completely accept the scientific consensus and reject AiG.
do your own research and decide for yourself.
Hi John Doe, If you are interested in an example analysis of AIG claims you can checkout one article on radiometric dating at http://www.answersincreation.org/hidingnumbers.htm AIG's Woodmorappe attempted to discredit dating methods by showing that researchers differ on their measurements, sometimes by millions of years. However he neglects to point out, that these errors are often small from a percentage standpoint (e.g. a couple of percent.) Do you trust someone that leaves out important information in an attempt to make their point?
Every system has its folly. I would never assume that all creationist scientists are 100% truthful nor atheists nor theistic evolutionists. Because all are flawed.
Nonetheless what do you think of this article on dating:
http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/nab/does-c14-disprove-the-bible
Hi John Doe,
A couple of comments on the article. First of all, the article makes it clear that the answer is non-negotiable: A ~6000 year old earth, and a universal flood. In my opinion this is not science--it's apologetics. Science evaluates theories on the data available, this person (which I would call a creation apologist, not scientist) sifts / spins the data to match the answer.
Some comments on the science part of this. Much of the argument focuses on anomalous high values of C14 in coal and diamonds. Most scientists claim these materials are far older than 80K years, so the C14 should be very low. There are measureable levels of C14 in some of the samples, so the author casts doubt on the viability of the ages or the method. The author does not point out that this might be due to contamination of the materials by the earth's natural radioactivity (which powers all the earth's volcanoes, magnetic field, etc.) see http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/c14.html A good scientist would bring up this issue and try to design an experiment to validate or invalidate this possible answer. This person chooses to not even mention the possibility.
The author also tries to use the flood as a way to dilute the amount of C14 in the ecosystem (making things look older than they are) by stating that a huge percentage of the carbon available was buried during the flood. I don't buy this argument at all because no matter how much carbon you buried, you would leave the ratio of C12 to C14 in the atmosphere the same. I don't see any depletion / enrichment mechanism that the flood could provide.
As far as the C12 / C14 levels not being in equilibrium see http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/dave_matson/young-earth/carbon-14/equilibrium.html This article mentions studies where C14 data has been cross correlated with tree ring data.
-- Vance
Vance-
Thank you for your detailed reply. It is true that I can't really talk science with you, though I'm not going to use that as a crutch to make my case in anyway. It would seem though that you do have some issues with the article.
This is what I see.
I have 'issues' with what you say the science says about God's creation. (Science can't answer the theological questions)
You have 'issues' with what my theology says about God's creation. (The Bible does not, in your opinion, hold any modern day scientific credibility.)
One thing I think that we both can agree on is that God could have created the universe in 7 seconds if he wanted to.
You base your opinion on your interpretation of the evidence. I base my opinion on my interpretation of the Bible. (not just referring to Genesis)
Trying to simplify things a bit I would say that:
(one reason) You choose to believe your stance because the evidence makes you think otherwise.
(one reason) I choose to believe my stance because the amount of theological things that get thrown into question because difficult to number.
I am curious. Do you believe that we evolved from apes? From your view, when did we get a soul? Did God give man a soul? Did a soul evolve? Are we made in the image of God? Are we different then animals? How and why? Does man have a different role in leadership then a woman? (interestingly Paul says to Timothy that the reason a man holds authority is because Adam was formed first, then Eve. That arguement doesn't hold much ground if one believes in a figurative Adam and Eve.) When do we read the OT as literal? How do we know we have chosen the right place to take a literal stand? What authority do the 10 commandments hold from a figurative view? Have we reached a point of stopping on the evolutionary role in God's creation from your view? It also presents God as having a nature that willingly presents destruction and death so that a smarter species can evolve? I'm sure I could think of many many more questions. Can you give an answer to all of them that makes you comfortable with your stance? I'd rather reject what the scientific interpretation says and lean on an appearance of age arguement then choose a belief system that doesn't have solid answers to these questions and the many more that this system embraces.
John Doe,
Just because a particular view of the physical world seems to answer some important theological questions doesn't make it true.
Case in point: medieval Christians embraced Aristotle's cosmology because it seemed to answer basic theological questions like: Where did Christ physically ascend to after he was physically resurrected? And where did Christ descend to after he was abandoned on the cross? Aristotle's cosmology also supported the ancient notion of the great "chain of being" that began with pure matter, like earth/rocks/dirt, moved to water, plants, animals, man (who is but a little lower than the angels), fire, various ranks of angelic beings, spirit and finally God himself. This also explained why matter fell towards the earth -- seeking its appointed place in the great chain of being, and why fire rose to the heavens -- seeking its appointed place in the same chain.
In Aristotle's cosmos, man -- being composed of two natures (matter and spirit) was perched between these two realities; heaven and hades. He could either follow his corporeal nature down to the underworld or he could follow his spiritual nature up to heaven. In this way, the entire cosmos was adapted to this great plan of salvation -- Which is exactly why medieval theologians were just as opposed to heliocentrism as you are opposed evolution.
Well, I can assure that most Christians today reject the Aristotilean cosmos and embrace the medieval heresy that the currupt earth moves through the immutable heavens without even thinking twice about it. The reason is that since the time of Copernicus and Galileo, there has been indisputable evidence that the earth is not at rest (stellar parralax and Fouccault's pendulum are two such 19th century developments). It might take 400 years, but someday Christian's will jettison these discredited notions of a recent and fully developed creation and learn to live comfortably with not having certainty in all of these important questions, just as we have learned to live with the notion that Christ physically ascended into a heaven that is not physially just above the clouds. Was his ascention merely figurative? Did he really ascend in bodily form?
If you are the type of person who must have air-tight satisfying answers to questions that have perplexed generations of Christians, than you will be perpeturally frustated. Humility is a important part of the Christian life.
Hi John Doe,
You're right. We both agree that God could have created the universe in 7 seconds if he had wanted to.
I agree with your analysis that the theological implications, especially with regards to Biblical interpretation, are more fundamental than the science involved. The church has shown that it can adjust its theology to embrace new scientific discoveries--if given enough time.
As far as "comfort level" with my stance, I am not comfortable with my position. As you point out it opens up a lot of theological issues. But I am more comfortable with this stance than taking the Bible over strongly verified science--in my mind the theological issues with this are even tougher.
I'll take a shot at a couple of your questions. But first a couple for you. What do you make of 1 Samuel 13:1? It sure looks like some words got dropped out. And how about John 7:53-8:11? The English Standard Bible notes that the earliest manuscripts don't include this passage, but the KJV has it. Is it God's Word or not? If God intended the cannon to be authoritative, then why is there ambiguity with it?
Your questions:
Do you believe that we evolved from apes? Evolutionary theory states that we descended from a common ancestor, shared with the ape, but we are a separate evolutionary branch from the apes. One little tidbit, one thing we share with the apes is the need for vitamin C in our diet. Lower mammals make their own vitamin C, but we and the apes share a mutation in the gene that breaks its Vitamin C making capability. See this link for more info on this: http://sandwalk.blogspot.com/2007/02/human-gulop-pseugogene.html
Question: From your view, when did we get a soul? Did God give man a soul? Did a soul evolve? Are we made in the image of God? Are we different then animals? How and why? Since I think the soul is a spiritual thing, I don't look to science to prove or disprove it. My hunch is that there was a point in time when homo sapiens reached a transition point, not just due to biology (although I think a bigger brain was necessary), but something changed, perhaps triggered by a development in language that enabled self awareness--and the ability to know good and evil. At that point I think humans became responsible, and like God--possessing an immortal spirit. I think there is an analogy to this with children. They aren't modest until a certain age, and then see that they are naked--what happens?
Question Does man have a different role in leadership then a woman? (interestingly Paul says to Timothy that the reason a man holds authority is because Adam was formed first, then Eve. That arguement doesn't hold much ground if one believes in a figurative Adam and Eve.) I think there are cultural factors in these teachings, and that Paul was addressing a specific problem in Timothy's church. In general I believe that God gives us all different gifts, and to deny those gifts in ourselves, or in others is sin. I also believe that "there is no male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus." Paul's statement about Adam coming first really puzzles me, because there are many examples in the Bible where the first was not the best, or put in natural authority (e.g., Esau--Issac, Reuben--Jacob).
Question When do we read the OT as literal? How do we know we have chosen the right place to take a literal stand? I'm far from having a comfortable grip on this, but right now I don't think the issue is about marking the Bible with literal / non-literal highlighters. I think the issue is obedience to Christ's spirit within us. For example, do you feel guilty if you don't keep the Sabbath as stated in the OT and the 10 commandments, if not, why not?
-- Vance
Gordon J. Glover-
Just because a particular view of the physical world seems to answer some important theological questions doesn't make it true. Surely, though I think your missing what I am saying, your view creates many many unanswered as well as many unanswerable questions.
Your example of Aristotle's cosmology actually seems like an argument that I would use against you... Do I have this right? He was using science to interpret the Bible, and he was found out wrong.
I don't agree that in 400 years people will realize this falsehood of a young earth. One reason being when you reject one part of the Bible you start to reject other parts. It all depends on how far you choose to take it. Do you even have some sort of guidelines for how you interpret scripture? Does it just come down to how you feel about it in relation to what you assume? The authority of scripture then becomes non existent as then you the user are the authority. One can take this out to the extreme, as many do to permit atrocities. I consider abortion one of those things. But maybe you don't have anything against abortion. Well it can be taken further, one can permit rape, premeditated cold blood murder, literally anything that you can think to challenge. It seems to me that there is a large group of Christians whom accept the same types of things. Many whom hold to theistic evolution permit homosexuality and abortion. With such a lax view and self deciding view of scripture one can bend it to fit the society that one currently lives in to avoid 'conflict'.
Do you have any guidelines that you abide by to keep you from drawing conclusions of 'everything is permissible'?
Without such guidelines I can show you how one can take the view of the skeptic and permit torture and rape of innocent little children. Do you think that I can not do that? If you don't think I can, give me versus in the Bible that would 'prove' the act of torture and rape upon little children is wrong. I can tell you though if I don't hold any guidelines for interpreting scripture then ones I myself have created then can dismiss any claims against my 'opinions' that you may have. Better yet, I'll build a case off of versus in the Bible that would 'encourage' the activity of rape and torture of children, I promise you its not hard.
Vance-
I like how you pointed out those passages, I haven't been introduced to them and will enjoy looking into them more later. I don't really understand why you use them in a case against me. I believe that the original autographs were flawless. I read briefly that with the 2nd passage mentioned that in old texts there are different placement of the verses. Though I think its obvious that in the original autograph penned by John would have had the correct placement or absence. It would seem as though you are questioning the authority of scripture and if you read above as I wrote to Gordon that when taken to the limits everything is permissible. Do you have any guidelines as to when you take the scripture verses of the Bible as authoritative?
You say that you view the soul as something spiritual (making it non physical presumably) yet you say that it developed physically. So you are saying that a spiritual essence evolved without the aid of God instead of saying that God put the soul in man at a specific time? How did the first men receive the chance of eternal salvation? How could they have known what was right and wrong? If a child grows up in a room with no knowledge of the outside world and their first experience outside of this lifeless room is the witnessing of a torture and murder are they going to just somehow know that it is wrong?
I would say that a child's modesty is directly influenced by their experiences and every variable that builds towards their older years. Yet there is a huge difference between learned behavior and an intangible spiritual essence.
We could get into a very large discussion on just male and female leadership. Let me quote Paul- 1 Tim. 2:12-13 “I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man; she must be silent. 13 For Adam was formed first, then Eve. “
He clearly says that woman should not teach or exercise authority over man. Then he says this is because “Adam was formed first, then Eve.” He doesn't mention any sort of conflict relative specifically to the church and his justification is general and applies universally. There are a load of versus that talk of male ruling over female especially within the marriage covenant. Gen. 3:16b “Your desire will be for your husband, and he will rule over you." Why does Adam coming first puzzle you. He isn't making the argument that everything that comes first has authority though in this situation he is saying that Adam being first does hold the authority. Eve was made from Adam. We can get much more detailed on this topic if you want.
I'll reply in detail to what you say about guilt about Sundays later.
...but right now I don't think the issue is about marking the Bible with literal / non-literal highlighters. I think the issue is obedience to Christ's spirit within us. For example, do you feel guilty if you don't keep the Sabbath as stated in the OT and the 10 commandments, if not, why not?I wouldn't have any reason to feel guilty if it were not for the doctrination of the church. Just as doctrination can induce guilt so can indoctrination. For example, I see nothing wrong with alcohol consumption in moderation. There are many Christians whom if they consumed alcohol would feel very guilty. I don't believe that their feelings of guilt is the Holy Spirit within us but feelings purely developed by poor teaching.
We can not rely on what our feelings say to interpret what God wants for us. We must have the Bible to know such things. If we get much into guilt we are going to start to have to talk about ethics etc... and this could surely be drawn out quite far.
You said this earlier: "In general I believe that God gives us all different gifts, and to deny those gifts in ourselves, or in others is sin."I'm curious as to what scripture verses you base your conclusion off of. Also by what means do you interpret what a 'gift' is as well as interpreting specifically how that gift should be used.
Also you mentioned Galatians 3:28 to argue against differences in male and female leadership. You completely pulled that verse out of context. It has absolutely nothing to do with male/female leadership. You didn't even quote the first part of the verse. There are 3 parts of 3 polar opposites. Greek-Jew, Slave-Free Person, Male-Female. Greeks are like Jews in that they both can be united together through Christs death on the cross and partake in all aspects of the covenant originally made between Abraham and Christ. (vs. 29) That also goes for the slave-free man and male-female. Because before the salvation things were different in each of their partaking of the covenant (vs. 29) between Abraham and God. Males only were circumcised, females were not. Now circumcision is gone and both male and female receive baptism.
I think that this is very apparent that this verse does in no way speak to anything related to roles of men and women in the church.
John Doe,
We are not enemies here. I understand your concern: if Christians dismiss any part of the bible as not authoritative then what's to stop us from dismissing the whole thing? I get it -- trust me. But the problem is this, CHRISTIANS ALREADY DISMISS ENTIRE PARTS OF THE BIBLE THAT DON'T SEEM LITERAL!
All I'm saying, and others like me, is this: if we are going to distinguish between something in the bible that is instructional and something that is incidental, then we had better have a consistent way of doing this or we will end up on the slippery slope that you just described.
Neither one of us wants the primarey message of the bible to be tossed out. You think the way to do this is to show that everything that the bible teaches, even when it discuss incidental scientific matters, must be authoritative or else none of it is authoritative. But the problem is that while you say this on one hand, you don't actually do it!
All I'm saying is let's be smart about why we don't take all biblical teaching to be authortaive. Do you advocate stoning disobedient children? Blasphemers? Homosexuals? Will you charge money to some man to marry your daughter? Probably no to all of these. So again, if we are going to purposely ignore something that the bible clearly teaches, then we should at least have a logical reason, or else the world will call us hippocrites.
It's no different when the bible teaches ancient science (and we know it's acient science because we have access to other literature that circulated during biblical times).
Let's try this:
1.) Do you believe that there is a body of water just above the sun, moon and stars? If not, why?
2.) Do you believe that epilepsy is caused by demons? If not, why?
3.) Do you believe that the earth is fixed at the center of the universe? If not, why?
4.) Do you believe that the earth is flat? If not, why?
5.) Do you believe that the sky is a solid dome? If not, why?
6.) Do you believe that the wind, sun, moon and stars enter the solid sky through doors at the east and west ends of the earth? If not, why?
7.) Do you believe that rain, hail and snow are kept in storehouses and enter the sky through tiny windows? If not, why?
All of these notions of ancient science are in the bible. Do you accept them as authoritative for today? Or do you conveniently dismiss them as so many evangelicals do? If you do dismiss them, on what basis do you dismiss these yet accept other notions of ancient science like "animals only after thier kind" or "all humans came from one couple" or "the creation was once perfect" or that "the earth was recently created in its present form" etc...?
You think you are protecting the authority of Scritpure by saying we must accept bible-science over man's science, but the world will notice your obvious inconsistency and your witness will be AGAINST God's Word! How do you feel about that?
How does Paul saying that Eve is subservent to Adam because he came first jibe with the first chapter of Genesis?
Just a side note, I really wish you would provide scripture references for things that you mention as it makes my job much easier and I don't have to worry about assuming your referring to a verse that you may not be.
I'm not sure I understand your use of the word incidental though I'm assuming you are referring to stories in the Bible that have no purpose other then stories and historical account. First off many actual stories have morals and I don't think there are any stories that don't serve a purpose other then an historical account. The flood, while remaining an actual historical account can also serve as a representation of the seriousness of God and sin.
Let me try and straighten something out with the scientific matter. Back to your example of the mustard seed. Mark is merely quoting Jesus, Mark does not say that Jesus parable should be taken from a scientific authoritative position. We would be foolish to just assume that as well. Many authors of the Bible tell about sinful actions of men and they surely do not advocate their actions they merely state the facts. The farthest you would get with the mustard seed argument is that Jesus was a scientifically inept person (though I am not seceding that) and that Mark makes note of it in his book.
Do you advocate stoning disobedient children? Blasphemers? Homosexuals? Will you charge money to some man to marry your daughter?I get your point and I will respond but I am curious what verse talks about stoning disobedient children? I know of stoning a disobedient son, but is there one about girls? Just wondering for personal interest.
No I don't advocate the stoning of those individuals though I do believe that they are all sinning and surely deserve death anyway just like all of us do through the act of one sin. Though there is a huge difference in the early days of the Israelites then there is with modern day. That is why I can choose to not abide by those old laws. God was the leader and lawmaker of the early Israel. He told Moses what laws to make known to the Israelites and how to specifically deal with various situations etc... Years later in 1 Sam. 8 Israel complains and wants a king. God tells them they shall have a king and Samuel dictates many of the various changes to the way things will run under kingship. We also have Jesus later on, in all of the synoptic gospels saying that there is a relationship that must be respected between Caesar and Christians. Specifically here a rendering of taxes to Caesar. So simply it is a trading of authority and God doesn't give or enforce those specific rules any more as kingship or any other type of leadership has taken over. I understand this is a brief overview and can go into more detail if need be.
Note: This is where the scripture references would have been GREATLY appreciated.
1.) Do you believe that there is a body of water just above the sun, moon and stars? If not, why?No I do not believe there is one and one must assume that there never was one as well if one wishes to make an argument from it. Then yet that argument is based off of an assumption that may not be agreed upon by the opposing party. If my answer doesn't appease you, I'm not surprised. We have already talked about this before and I don't think that we can still get anywhere with it as you and I both hold to assumptions that we can not justify.
2.) Do you believe that epilepsy is caused by demons? If not, why?Is this something that I should believe is caused by demons? I have never even thought about this before. I guess in some situations it could be caused by demons. I don't think that demons are as active today as they were in the past. It is interesting how often Jesus ran into demon possessed people. Someone once said that this was Satan's last attempt to try and overthrow God's work. I wouldn't know if someone was or wasn't demon possessed and to my knowledge the Bible doesn't offer a guide to diagnosing that issue.
3.) Do you believe that the earth is fixed at the center of the universe? If not, why?
4.) Do you believe that the earth is flat? If not, why?Really wish you had given me verses as that would strongly effect my reply. Have we not already talked about poetic license as well as metaphors? When Jesus says “I am the true vine.” John 15:1 even though he doesn't say “Hey guys, I'm being metaphorical here.” we would be fools to think that he means he is a literal vine and not a human being talking to them right now. I would like to take these things on a case by case basis but I think within context MOST will be obviously a metaphor. Especially in the Psalms. When a Psalmist says something like “Wherein are things creeping innumerable” Ps, 104:25 Are we going to shout, “You dirty rotten scumbag of a liar, surely there can be an exact count of all the creeping things on the earth. You should be ashamed of your self, sowing such lies!” No, we are going to realize he is being metaphorical. Like I said case by case basis if you really want to get into it.
5.) Do you believe that the sky is a solid dome? If not, why?
6.) Do you believe that the wind, sun, moon and stars enter the solid sky through doors at the east and west ends of the earth? If not, why?
7.) Do you believe that rain, hail and snow are kept in storehouses and enter the sky through tiny windows? If not, why?Again I'd like to take this on a case by case basis. I will go through every single verse that you present if you want me to.
But while I'm answering all your questions I have another for you, more scientific based instead of theology as you don't seem to like addressing those.
I presume that genetic mutation is accepted by evolutionary theory as being completely random. Do you believe that genetic mutation is completely random. Random, by definition, means that not even God knows the outcome. If you say that God does know the outcome then genetic mutation is deterministic and not random. If it is deterministic then you reject the common acceptance of the randomness of genetic mutation and its relationship to evolutionary theory. I'd appreciate you just detailing your side of choice on the matter.
Can you mark a dividing line for me as to which animals have souls and which animals don't?
Rowen-
How does Paul saying that Eve is subservent to Adam because he came first jibe with the first chapter of Genesis? By 'jibe' do you mean agree? How does it not agree. Genesis states that Adam was created first and Paul makes note of it for his argument. Certainly after the fall one can read the leadership, specifically in a marriage relationship, between a husband and a wife. Gen. 3:16. And certainly the many other versus of the leadership within the marriage covenant of the husband and wife. Eph 5:22, Col 3:18, 1 Pe. 3:1. Now you may correctly notice that these verses don't specifically state anything outside of a marriage covenant. So you may try to argue that it is permissible for a female to preach to a denomination as she is not married to them. I would often joke that the wife of that female preacher is not then permissible to attend that church as then his wife would be an authority over him. But any how, Paul doesn't mention his case based in a marriage relationship. His reason being “For Adam was formed first, then Eve. And it was not Adam who was deceived. It was the woman who was deceived and became a lawbreaker.“
Genesis chapter 2 says that Adam was created first and that Eve was created from Adam. Chapter 1, specifically 1:27 just says that both man and woman were created. There's an implication that they were created at the same time, since the author doesn't go into any more detail. Chapter 2, however, God creates Adam, THEN all the beasts, THEN Eve.
Now, if you're taking this as literal truth and history, you've got a slight problem in the chronology. However, when you take this as an allegory and actually focus on the MESSAGE behind the story and stop worrying about if it 100% happened EXACTLY as written, there's not much of a problem. The message is still the same.
I think this is the problem with most Christians, especially ones who insist that everything in the bible is the literal truth. Plenty of other religions, usually more shamanistic ones, have juxtaposed their mythology/holy scriptures with what they see in the world. The gods don't HAVE to exist EXACTLY as told in our world, because they do in the Dreamtime, or whatever you're spiritual realm is. So, they can move past this insistence on being literal, and get to the point. Kinda like when 12 year olds stop taking everything literally and start appreciating nuance.
John Doe,
I realize that I probably listed too many instances of "Bible science" to deal with in this format, so if you would like to just focus on one or two, I will provide you the references.
Let me say this though about poetic license: when the entire civilized world believes something, like that the sky is a dome or that the earth is flat or that the heavens revolve around the earth, there is no logical reason to believe that God's people believed any differently. In fact, THE ONLY WAY GOD'S PEOPLE COULD HAVE KNOW THE TRUTH IS IF GOD HAD REVEALED TO THEM IN THE BIBLE. However, we don't find any 21st century science in the bible, only ancient science. So when the authors repeat the science of the their day, it is safe to assume that they are not being poetic, metaphorical, or allegorical. THEY ARE BEING LITERAL BECAUSE THEY DIDN'T KNOW ANY BETTER!
Let me deal with something else you specifically asked:
"I presume that genetic mutation is accepted by evolutionary theory as being completely random."
Yes, that is correct.
"Do you believe that genetic mutation is completely random."
Since I have not done any personal research on the subject, I have no good reason to doubt the scientific consensus, which says that genetic mutations are indeed random.
"Random, by definition, means that not even God knows the outcome."
Where in the world did you get that definition? Richard Dawkins? How about this definition: "The lot is cast into the lap, but its every decision is from the Lord" - Psalm 16:33.
"If you say that God does know the outcome then genetic mutation is deterministic and not random."
In logic, that is known as a false dilemma. If you believe the bible (Psalm 16:33) something can be statistically random and still be under God's providence.
"If it is deterministic then you reject the common acceptance of the randomness of genetic mutation and its relationship to evolutionary theory."
Wrong again. When scientists speak of randomness, they are merely talking about mathematical probabilities. They are NOT making teleological statements about natual phenomena. Those types of transcendent value judgements are outside the domain of scientific inquiry.
"I'd appreciate you just detailing your side of choice on the matter."
All physical processes are some mix of necessity and contingency. Nature is statistically indeterminate at the lowest (quantum) levels, yet deterministic laws seem to govern the macro-world. The "butterfly effect" says that complex systems are highly sensitive to even the slightest pterbations. This is the field of complex dynamics and chaos theory. Very interesting stuff.
And this powerful combination of law and chance (ie: necessity and contingency) creates novelty -- it is a creative force that makes the world interesting. How boring would the weather be without randomness? Yet the laws of nature govern all atmosphereic phenomena.
In fact, most games combine these same two elements -- chance and strategy. At the lowest levels of Monopoly, you are simply rolling the dice (chance). A strict reductionist might say that because of this, the game is meaningless as it is pure chance. But we know from experience that strategy plays an important role as well.
In scientific circles, this phenomenon is known as "emergence" -- in which complex systems give rise to novel functions and behaviors that are ontologically real, yet can't simply be reduced down to fundamental forces in a purely reductionist sense.
In short, the laws of nature acting on the raw material of genetic variation, as supplied by random mutations, is a necessary (but not sufficient) explanation of the diversity of life we currently observe. And I'm using the terms "necessary" and "sufficient" in a logical sense. In other words, if one knew everything about the first living cell, and had access to all of the laws of nature, they could not logically deduce the evolution of bunny rabbits because of the role that contingency plays in evolution. Therefore, evolution is not a sufficient explanation of the what we currently find in nature, but it is a necessary explanation in that the existence of bunny rabbits can be explained by the laws of nature acting on the first living cell.
Using the weather again as an analogy, the laws of nature are a necessary, but not sufficient, explanation of the weather. In other words, if we knew the exact position, velocity and temperature of every air molecule in the atmosphere, and had sufficient computational capacity to simulate the atmosphere, you still couldn't tell me if there will be rain or sunshine on September 1, 2009 in Washington D.C. However, rain and sunshine can be necessarily explained by the laws of nature post hoc. The role that chance plays in the evolution is analogous to this.
Clear as mud?
Let me poke my nose in here briefly on a topic that's often misrepresented in these kinds of discussions.
"Random" with reference to evolution means that the mutations that occur are uncorrelated with the selective "needs" of the population. Period.
Mutations are caused -- various kinds of mutagens like chemicals or radiation can increase the mutation rate.
Mutations are not randomly distributed across the genome -- there are mutational "hot spots" that are more prone to mutations than other places. Some genes are more prone to mutation than others (length of the gene is one variable that influences that).
Once again, mutations are random with respect to the selective environment. What mutations occur is chance; which mutations are preserved is not chance. So evolution is not a random process.
Hi John Doe,
I'll respond to some of your other questions later, but I am really curious about one thing. You quote I Tim 2:12-13 as being the definitive answer about male-female leadership roles:
Let me quote Paul- 1 Tim. 2:12-13 “I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man; she must be silent. 13 For Adam was formed first, then Eve. “So, you since you are assuming this passage (I have quoted from the ESV starting from verse 8 below) is definitive, I can only conclude that you believe that braided hair for women is sinful and should be banned in churches. Is that your position? If not why not?
-- Vance
"I desire then that in every place the men should pray, lifting holy hands without anger or quarreling; 9 likewise also that women should adorn themselves in respectable apparel, with modesty and self-control, not with braided hair and gold or pearls or costly attire, 10 but with what is proper for women who profess godliness—with good works. 11 Let a woman learn quietly with all submissiveness. 12 I do not permit a woman to teach or to exercise authority over a man; rather, she is to remain quiet. 13 For Adam was formed first, then Eve; 14 and Adam was not deceived, but the woman was deceived and became a transgressor."
Rowen- There is no problem with the chronology. Chapter 1 states on day 6 beasts were created first then Man and Woman (Adam and Eve) and then the day ends. Chapter 2 states day 6 in detail. God created them male and female, male and female he created them just at different times in the day. When an artist creates 2 paintings and says “I painted both of those” he could have easily painted both of them 2 years apart he is just saying that he made both of the pictures. I’m pretty sure I already addressed the animal part that you reference earlier. (as well as what is said about the plants in ch. 2) Simply most render the Hebrew “had formed” as the NIV does.
Gordon J. Glover-
Note: You said, “The only way God’s people could have known the truth is if God had revealed it to them in the Bible.” Not exactly, someone has to write the Bible so they must receive some form of divine inspiration.
---
Here is your argument and a possible response to it:
Your argument that the phenomenological nature of the description leads to an entire figurative explanation is too quickly assumed. If Moses has been instructed by God to describe the sky as it appears to the eye you must realize that that is quite different then God telling Moses to describe the creation account as purely fictional. You jump to the conclusion so quickly because of your views on science and not on these scripture passages.
Here is an example: When a child asks, “Where do babies come from?” If the parent responds that they come from “Mothers stomach” (aka. Mommies tummy) they are being slightly, as well as knowingly, being unscientific. It is a simplified version that to the eye of the child appears valid. I relate this to the way the firmament is being described as appearing to the eye.
Now if the parent were to say “Babies are carried in white sheets by storks to desiring parents” that would be quite different. It is completely contrived, unscientific and has no value. I believe that you would state day 6 (man created of dust, women from rib etc…) as not being unscientific but being completely contrived, because you believe in a descent from some type of ape.
You see what I am getting at? There are different types of figurativeness. The sky as described is figurative yet it is visibly representative of some accuracy. The creation of man as described as figurative turns the figurativeness from slight simplified exaggeration to complete and utter falsities.
Your stretching the argument and the assumptions associated with it way to far to come to the conclusion that “well everything else is figurative then.” That is as if you were to walk back into your high school science class and the teacher says “Hey, did you guys check out the sunrise this morning? It was beautiful.” You, knowing that the sun doesn’t actually rise, choose to discount anything else that the teacher says for the rest of the lesson. A little absurd of a conclusion towards the teacher don’t you think?
I can liken the example of the science teacher to that of the Genesis account and you can’t disprove me using the text. You feel strong in your opinions though because what you have learned related to science.
Moving on:
"Random, by definition, means that not even God knows the outcome."
Where in the world did you get that definition? Richard Dawkins? How about this definition: "The lot is cast into the lap, but its every decision is from the Lord" - Psalm 16:33.It is actually Proverbs, not Psalms just so you know.
I don’t think you understand. Random means that there is no pattern to it, there is no deterministic capabilities of it. Nothing truly is random because God knows all that will be. We say that flipping a coin is random and you can’t know whether it will land heads or tails. That is not true, in fact if you had all the variables associated with the coin flip (velocity, initial spin, mass of coin, placement of air molecules, distance to the floor, coefficient of friction of the floor etc… nonetheless a LOT of variables) you could calculate if it lands heads or tails. Random is a non existent term as God knows all. An instrumentalist might say that if genetic mutation is deterministic we don’t yet have the understanding to define the deterministic mechanism(s). God knows the deterministic mechanisms, yet it may be Himself alone, nonetheless there is a deterministic nature to genetic mutation.
If you agree with the common consensus of the random nature of genetic mutation then you must renounce belief in an omniscient God.
If you believe in a deterministic nature of genetic mutation you do this on faith alone, in God, and not based off of scienctific evidence. Though now you would place yourself at ends with the atheist scienctist by renouncing the lack of determinism concensus. Oh no, conflict!
You said: something can be statistically random and still be under God's providence.Would you give me a real world example of something statistically random?
You said: When scientists speak of randomness, they are merely talking about mathematical probabilities.There is no such thing as probability. Probably is a man made term to represent the finite abilities of mans own knowledge to represent what he doesn’t know in as general terms as possible. There is nothing in this world that ‘might’ happen. We say that because we do not know what exactly will happen. We must remember though that God does, and nothing happens that God does not already know will happen. You as a Christian should know that there truly is no “that might evolve into that” except to denote ones finite mind. The atheist scientist can go no further then that. Yet you can know that their truly is no random nature to mutation.
I could go on and on developing this but I still have more people to reply to. Please let me know if there is confusion.
Side note: ‘emergence’ is an atheists term to hide from ‘the God dilemma’ Honestly, think about it.
RBH- Do you believe in God? (I think that presupposition is quite important in this discussion)
You said: ”What mutations occur is chance”
So you don’t believe that there is any deterministic nature to which mutations will occur?
Vance-
You must be very careful with the type of argument that you are using. If one says “this is addressing a past problem and does not relate to us anymore” one can be walking near dangerous waters. Taken to an extreme extent, one can argue that all of Jesus teaching is useless to us today because he is not addressing us specifically so surely it could be different today. Surely we don’t wish to go that far lest we toss out the entire Bible.
Many commentators state that women of that time were decking themselves out in some seriously extravagant get ups. Lots of jewels, really fancy hair etc… so this was way above your average “pig tails”. Probably these were people whom were much more concerned about their looks then the average women in church. He instructs them to dress modestly. I think we surely should still hold to this even today. Women who are spending hours doing there hair, face and make-up, wearing expensive jewelry and expensive dresses need to be questioned for their motives. (maybe not directly questioned in church by the pastor, but surely the husband) One should look presentable but not gaudy.
This principal applies later on in the passage in 11-13. Maybe at that time, in the church, women were being outrageously authoritative and demanding. Challenging male leaders etc… that still doesn’t mean that Pauls principal doesn’t apply generally. His argument about Adam applies generally so his principal should also be accepted generally. He could have easily said something like “The women are taking over the teaching in the church and not allowing fair share to the men, this is wrong because its not fair.” Instead he chooses to say, women should never “exercise authority over a man” and his reason was founded at the creation of the world “For Adam was formed first, then Eve; and Adam was not deceived, but the woman was deceived and became a transgressor.”
When Jesus tells the rich man to sell his belongings (Mark 10:21) one probably will not assume that all Christians should sell everything and become a steadfast follower of God as rich people can enter heaven. (Matthew 19:24-26). What we should infer from Mark 10:21 is that teachings don’t just apply directly to one person but they apply generally as well. Meaning a rich man should not store up earthly treasures but heavenly treasures which is what Mark 10:21 alludes to.
If college girls were to start attending your church in nothing but undergarments what verses would you use to show them that they are wrong in what they do? I personally would use the verse you quoted in 1 Tim., yet if you do not believe that it is in any way applicable to us today then you must find another passage.
Wow this took forever to type….
I think these responses are just going to get longer. It seems everyone has questions for me and not each other. Oh well. I didn’t proof read this just so you know.
John Doe,
I think we actually agree on the nature of Revelation here:
"If Moses has been instructed by God to describe the sky as it appears to the eye you must realize that that is quite different then God telling Moses to describe the creation account as purely fictional." -- agreed.
"You jump to the conclusion so quickly because of your views on science and not on these scripture passages." -- not exactly. I don't claim that God told Moses to describe the creation account as purely fictional. I'm saying that Moses described it according to the common belief at the time.
"I relate this to the way the firmament is being described as appearing to the eye." -- you are absolutely correct. In fact all ancient science was based on how things appeard to the naked eye from the vantage point of earth's surface. Hence the belief in the waters above the sun, moon and stars. From earth, the sky looks just like the ocean does at 30,000 ft. And when we want to recreate the sky, we build a dome and project light on the underside (ie: a planetarium). Hmmm... I'd say the ancient description is pretty accurrate (phenomenollically speaking).
"I believe that you would state day 6 (man created of dust, women from rib etc…) as not being unscientific but being completely contrived, because you believe in a descent from some type of ape." -- Man IS created from dust. Every scientist will admit this fact. There are just some steps in between that were obviously of no concern to the ancient mind, so the Holy Spirit saw no reason to list them in detail. Rather, biological sucession was described according to how it appeared to the ancient eye -- that things only descend after their own kind. In fact, even if in our short lifetimes, we will observe the same thing. Only by observing deep geological time can one see descent with modification.
"The sky as described is figurative yet it is visibly representative of some accuracy." -- To say that the sky is solid and on it rests another body of water, and under this body of water are the sun, moon and stars might be phenomenollogically accurate, but technically it is as just as wrong is your stork/baby theory.
"The creation of man as described as figurative turns the figurativeness from slight simplified exaggeration to complete and utter falsities." -- Moses' description of the sky is technically completely and utter false from a modern scientific perspective, be he gives us a correct, although simplified account, of the creation of man. Just as he gives us simplified account of Cane and Able. Cane fears for his life because no matter where we wonders in the land, other "peoples" will know about what he did to his brother and want to kill him. So he goes to another city and takes a wife from there. Huh? How could this be if Cane and Able are the only children of Adam and Even listed in the Bible? Either, (1) there were many more ciblings not mentioned, or (2) not all humans were descended from Adam and Eve. Either way, you have to admit that Moses omits a lot of detail. The same is true of Man's journey from dust to image-bearer.
"That is as if you were to walk back into your high school science class and the teacher says “Hey, did you guys check out the sunrise this morning? It was beautiful.” You, knowing that the sun doesn’t actually rise, choose to discount anything else that the teacher says for the rest of the lesson."
This argument doesn't work because we all know the sun doesn't rise. However, when an ancient person said "sunrise" they were being literal.
"I don’t think you understand. Random means that there is no pattern to it, there is no deterministic capabilities of it." -- I don't understand? You've already admitted your ignorance in scientific matters and now you are demonstrating it for all to see. As it turns out, your understanding of reality is about 100 years behind. Have you ever heard of Quantum Mechanics? Complex Dynamics? Chaos Theory? You can't have credibility when arguing from a 19th-century perspective.
"Nothing truly is random because God knows all that will be." -- Here you are mixing teleological statements with scientific descriptions of reality. It would more appropriate to say that "Nothing is random according to the foreknowledge of God, but things appear random to us because we are bound by time and can only see the present."
"We say that flipping a coin is random and you can’t know whether it will land heads or tails. That is not true, in fact if you had all the variables associated with the coin flip (velocity, initial spin, mass of coin, placement of air molecules, distance to the floor, coefficient of friction of the floor etc… nonetheless a LOT of variables) you could calculate if it lands heads or tails." -- No, you could not. Again, you are thinking like an 19th-century (possibly early 20th-century) physicist.
"Random is a non existent term as God knows all." -- Fine, but random is an entirely appropriate term for humans as we are finite.
"...there is a deterministic nature to genetic mutation." -- not from our perspective. These things happen at the molecular level. Quantum indeterminancy plays a role.
"If you agree with the common consensus of the random nature of genetic mutation then you must renounce belief in an omniscient God." -- I reject your false dichotomy. There are many folks with Advanced degrees in both Science and Theology that would also stronly disagree with you. What makes you think you have a greater understanding than them?
"Though now you would place yourself at ends with the atheist scienctist by renouncing the lack of determinism concensus. Oh no, conflict!" -- Uh, I believe that Christ was the son of God and was crucified, died, burried, and rose again on the 3rd day. So obviously I'm not trying to win any brownie points with my atheist friends. They already think I have a mental disorder. My goal is truth, and a proper understanding of God's word and his world.
"Would you give me a real world example of something statistically random?" -- nuclear decay of a single unstable molecule. Quantum fluctuations (particle/antiparticle creation and anihilation), the location of a electron in its orbital shell, etc...
"There is no such thing as probability. Probably is a man made term to represent the finite abilities of mans own knowledge to represent what he doesn’t know in as general terms as possible." -- You said there is no such thing as probibility and then you gave me a pretty good definition of it. So which is it? According to your logic, there must be no such thing as time becuase that is a man-made term to represent the finite abilities of man's temporal existence. Do you want to reconsider this statement?
"There is nothing in this world that ‘might’ happen." -- Really? Well I might not make it church this morning if I attempt to address all of your silly claims.
"You as a Christian should know that there truly is no “that might evolve into that” except to denote ones finite mind." -- so you're telling me that you never use the term "might" to describe something that is unresolved or indeterminate from your finite perspective? I seriously doubt that.
"The atheist scientist can go no further then that." -- indeed. My experience with atheists is that they go no further than what the evidence suggests. I am sympathetic to this position because of its parsimony, yet I can't help but to live by faith. But faith is not irrational. Faith is super-rational (as in, beyond rational). It is merely the evidence of things unseen. It allows us to bridge the Gap between where the observable evidence can take us and where our traditions require us to be. Faith does not give us liberty to ignore the obvious, like an old earth or evolution etc...
"Side note: ‘emergence’ is an atheists term to hide from ‘the God dilemma’ Honestly, think about it." -- that's actually funny. Emergence is a wonderful concept that explains, in physical terms, why a strict materialistic reductionism fails. This concept is a rich "common ground" that allows theists and atheists to have constructive dialogue about the ontological nature of reality.
Gordon J. Glover
“not exactly. I don't claim that God told Moses to describe the creation account as purely fictional. I'm saying that Moses described it according to the common belief at the time.”
And common belief at the time was purely fictional...
“Man IS created from dust. Every scientist will admit this fact. There are just some steps in between that were obviously of no concern to the ancient mind, so the Holy Spirit saw no reason to list them in detail. Rather, biological sucession was described according to how it appeared to the ancient eye”
Would you agree to women being made from mans rib?
This is where you get carried away. If someone were to witness evolution happen (obviously at a really fast rate) they wouldn't describe it as “God put Adam in a deep sleep and pulled a rib out of him”. Surely an eye witness would see something like “That animal changes into another animal which changes into an animals that looks like us humans today.” Do you not see the difference? One is phenomenological (as it appears to the eye) and one is “culturally like minded”. You bridge the gap between phenomenological and “culturally accepted” with absolutely nothing. It is as if you do not see the difference in the way the description of the account is made.
“To say that the sky is solid and on it rests another body of water, and under this body of water are the sun, moon and stars might be phenomenologically accurate, but technically it is as just as wrong is your stork/baby theory.”
But the difference one is greater truth based than the other. For simplicity lets say that your view is correct and that Moses saw the entire process in a dream. If one speaks phenomenologically one says that the baby comes from the mothers stomach. Though if one is being ridiculous they say from a stork. If Moses is describing the sky phenomenologically then what would stop him from describing evolution in the same manner. Like “Ape to another ape to a human likeness ape to a human”. That certainly would be phenomenologically speaking. As I said before you are attempting to bridge the gap without the use of a bridge.
“So he goes to another city and takes a wife from there. Huh? How could this be if Cane and Able are the only children of Adam and Even listed in the Bible? Either, (1) there were many more siblings not mentioned, or (2) not all humans were descended from Adam and Eve. Either way, you have to admit that Moses omits a lot of detail. The same is true of Man's journey from dust to image-bearer.”
Oh you can't be serious... Genesis 5:3-4 “When Adam had lived 130 years, he had a son in his own likeness, in his own image; and he named him Seth. After Seth was born, Adam lived 800 years and had other sons and daughters.” Just in case your wondering, incest wasn't banned until later.
“I don't understand? You've already admitted your ignorance in scientific matters and now you are demonstrating it for all to see. As it turns out, your understanding of reality is about 100 years behind. Have you ever heard of Quantum Mechanics? Complex Dynamics? Chaos Theory? You can't have credibility when arguing from a 19th-century perspective.”
I never said I was ignorant in scientific matters I only have stated that I surely am not an authority in the matter. Yes I have heard of quantum mechanics as well as chaos theory. Though I have a little more knowledge that having 'heard' of the two.
"We say that flipping a coin is random and you can’t know whether it will land heads or tails. That is not true, in fact if you had all the variables associated with the coin flip (velocity, initial spin, mass of coin, placement of air molecules, distance to the floor, coefficient of friction of the floor etc… nonetheless a LOT of variables) you could calculate if it lands heads or tails." -- No, you could not. Again, you are thinking like an 19th-century (possibly early 20th-century) physicist.Surely you can theoretically. Which is why I said IF you have all the variables. An atheist must default to a deterministic universe. Hiding behind the unknowns of quantum mechanics such as emergence can only be their hope for what is unknown. One must in the end understand that the idea of 'emergence' absolutely must have a deterministic answer to it. That answer may be some spiritual non tangible force only created by God. If that is the case then we can only determine the future while knowing the in's and out's of the ethreal force placed in effect by God or whatever it may be.
An atheist must accept for the safety of their own beliefs that 'emergence' will be found out to be a deterministic action. For they must accept the universe as being material. They have no basis to think otherwise outside of philosophical musing. Just as God could 'calculate' the flip of a coin, so could we if we had the knowledge that God has, or maybe we will find out it is knowledge that is attainable with our finite minds.
"If you agree with the common consensus of the random nature of genetic mutation then you must renounce belief in an omniscient God." -- I reject your false dichotomy. There are many folks with Advanced degrees in both Science and Theology that would also stronly disagree with you. What makes you think you have a greater understanding than them?Do you believe that God knows what future mutations will occur in the world? If so then they are deterministic, it may be that the only way to determine the future mutations is to ask God, but I doubt that God hasn't created some sort of self reliable system. Nonetheless, the ability to ask God means you can 'determine' the outcome of future mutations. Meaning they are not random!
"Though now you would place yourself at ends with the atheist scienctist by renouncing the lack of determinism concensus. Oh no, conflict!" -- Uh, I believe that Christ was the son of God and was crucified, died, burried, and rose again on the 3rd day. So obviously I'm not trying to win any brownie points with my atheist friends. They already think I have a mental disorder. My goal is truth, and a proper understanding of God's word and his world.Ahhh but the difference is they can not disprove any of what you believe because all that you stated is purely based on faith. Yet if you were to believe in a young earth you'd have them jumping at your heels throwing data at you. I'm sure its much easier the way you have it right now.
"There is no such thing as probability. Probably is a man made term to represent the finite abilities of mans own knowledge to represent what he doesn’t know in as general terms as possible." -- You said there is no such thing as probibility and then you gave me a pretty good definition of it. So which is it? According to your logic, there must be no such thing as time becuase that is a man-made term to represent the finite abilities of man's temporal existence. Do you want to reconsider this statement?Uh... no? There is no such thing as 'luck' yet I can give a definition as to what the illusion of it is.
"There is nothing in this world that ‘might’ happen." -- Really? Well I might not make it church this morning if I attempt to address all of your silly claims.You either will or will not get to church. “Might”, again, is a word then can be described in its illusionary terms.
"Side note: ‘emergence’ is an atheists term to hide from ‘the God dilemma’ Honestly, think about it." -- that's actually funny. Emergence is a wonderful concept that explains, in physical terms, why a strict materialistic reductionism fails. This concept is a rich "common ground" that allows theists and atheists to have constructive dialogue about the ontological nature of reality.Atheist scientists use 'emergence' to draw them selves away from a deterministic universe. For if the universe is deterministic, then free will is non existent and people can not be responsible for their actions in an absolute sense of 'responsibility'. You see there world crumbles with out an idea of something that gives them a hope for free will with out the existence of an eternal being. Though free will from a Christian perspective is not super easy to write about either. Which is why I mention emergence in passing. Though it really disgusts me how an atheist scientist will use all means necessary to stay away from the idea of a God. “Hey this electron seems to 'know' where it is going! It must not be deterministic! Sweet free will exists! Who cares why it does what it does, God surely doesn't have anything to do with it!” The funny thing is, they must in the end expect to understand emergence from a deterministic viewpoint thus removing their hopes again for any sort of free will.
"And common belief at the time was purely fictional..." NO! -- it wasn't fictional at the time, and neither was it intended to be fictional. So while it might be inconsistent with our current working knowledge, we can still recognize it as a vestige of our intellectual history. Why can you not understand this? Science changes as our ability to make emperical observations changes. Ancient science was based on simple appearences.
"Would you agree to women being made from mans rib?" -- not as a biological account. But there is a lot of good theology in that description.
"If Moses is describing the sky phenomenologically then what would stop him from describing evolution in the same manner?" -- Here is a free history lesson for you: Mankind didn't know about evolution until the 19th century. Moses had no more knowledge of evolution than he did of the sphereical moving earth. I think that would have certainly stopped him from describing creation in modern terms.
"Oh you can't be serious... Genesis 5:3-4 “When Adam had lived 130 years, he had a son in his own likeness, in his own image; and he named him Seth. After Seth was born, Adam lived 800 years and had other sons and daughters.” Just in case your wondering, incest wasn't banned until later." -- Perhaps you should read the story again and pay careful attention to what it actually says. When Eve gives birth to Seth (at age 130) she says (in 4:25) that "God has granted me another child in place of Abel, since Cain killed him." Seth was son #3. The "other sons and daughters" spoken of in 5:4 were obviously born after the events in Chapter 4. There has to be more to the story.
I'll let RBH speak for the atheist.
"Yet if you were to believe in a young earth you'd have them jumping at your heels throwing data at you. I'm sure its much easier the way you have it right now." -- Like I said, Faith is the evidence of things unseen, not a license to ignore mountains of data.
"Uh... no? There is no such thing as 'luck' yet I can give a definition as to what the illusion of it is." -- So TIME is an illusion then? Do you still use the term?
"Atheist scientists use 'emergence' to draw them selves away from a deterministic universe." -- And I take it you've gathered this information from your extensive interaction with atheist scientists? Have you even read one book on the subject from an atheist scientist?
"For if the universe is deterministic, then free will is non existent and people can not be responsible for their actions in an absolute sense of 'responsibility'." -- but the universe is not deterministic. I refer you again to quantum mechanics.
"You see there world crumbles with out an idea of something that gives them a hope for free will with out the existence of an eternal being." -- Again, you are showing up to the party about 100 years too late. This might have been a philosophical problem in the late 19th/early 20th century, but Modern physics has destroyed any notion of a purely deterministic universe.
"Though it really disgusts me how an atheist scientist will use all means necessary to stay away from the idea of a God. “Hey this electron seems to 'know' where it is going! It must not be deterministic! Sweet free will exists! Who cares why it does what it does, God surely doesn't have anything to do with it!” -- Really? Is that what they said? My atheists friends will surely be upset that their secret is out. You must be secretly taping their underground meetings or something.
"The funny thing is, they must in the end expect to understand emergence from a deterministic viewpoint thus removing their hopes again for any sort of free will." -- Not all atheist scientists believe in emergence. There are still strict reductionists out there like Professor Steven Weinberg (of my alma mater) for example. Many are still quite content with the idea of no free will. And many of those who are studying emergence don't care one way or the other. So I really doubt that somebody just made up an entire dicipline of academic study just to excape the problem of free will.
Rather than just dismiss it, why not use it a springboard for constructive dialogue?
I'm up to my eyebrows in alligators, but let me make a remark or two on "free will." John Doe seems to think that free will requires that the universe be non-deterministic. Well, let's first consider what "free will" means. I take to mean that "I" -- the consciousness that identifies itself as RBH -- can make choices and that those choices have some causal effect on my behavior. That means in order to actually do anything, my choices have to cause behavior. So the exercise of "free will" requires that in the universe things cause other things. It has to be at least statistically deterministic at the middling level of analysis in which humans live. Otherwise "free will" would be meaningless, since our choices and our behaviors would be unrelated if choices didn't have some causal efficacy, if they didn't at least in part determine our behavior.
I find it more than ironic that a Christian who believes in a God who says, in effect, "believe in me or you'll be tortured in hell for all eternity" can make a big deal of free will. That's about as coerced a decision as one can imagine. It's far worse than "your money or your life," but it's in the same category of coerced decisions.
The opposite of free will is not random or uncaused, but is "coerced." My choices are not free if they are coerced by some external agency. My choices are free in the only sense that matters if they are determined by my own perceptual and cognitive apparatus -- what I carry around in my brain. I don't have time to develop that here. The best reference I can give John Doe for an account of free will that I can endorse is Danial Dennett's Freedom Evolves. I won't try to give you the matchbook cover version; you'll have to read it for yourself (I'm currently re-reading it).
Finally, John Doe makes a lot of noise about what "atheist scientists" do and say, but he may be interested to know that I've been an atheist for a couple of decades and have been a scientist for more than four decades, and my science did not change one tiny bit as I moved from being a Christian in a fairly conservative denomination to being an atheist.
John Doe addressed a couple of questions to me. First, he asked
RBH- Do you believe in God? (I think that presupposition is quite important in this discussion).
No, I don't. As noted above, I've been an atheist for a couple of decades.
John Doe asked furtherYou said: ”What mutations occur is chance”
So you don’t believe that there is any deterministic nature to which mutations will occur?.
That question makes no sense to me. If by "deterministic" you mean that we live in a Laplacian universe, then as Gordon has pointed out, you're operating with concepts shown to be false a century ago. The universe is not Laplacian.
Do I think mutations are caused? Sure. Do I think there's some indeterminacy operating in them? Sure -- quantum mechanics assures that. But once again, the only sense of "chance" or "random" that's invoked by evolutionary theory refers to the relationship between the selective "needs" of a population and the mutations that occur, and it is that there is no correlation between them. The mutations that occur are not determined by the selective 'needs" of the population; the relationship is random in the sense of being uncorrelated.
NO! -- it wasn't fictional at the time, and neither was it intended to be fictional. So while it might be inconsistent with our current working knowledge, we can still recognize it as a vestige of our intellectual history. Why can you not understand this? Science changes as our ability to make emperical observations changes. Ancient science was based on simple appearences.Your missing my point, that fact that according to your view point it is fictional is where I am making my case. Whether or not Moses or the Israelites knew this and that is completely irrelevant.
Here is a free history lesson for you: Mankind didn't know about evolution until the 19th century. Moses had no more knowledge of evolution than he did of the sphereical moving earth. I think that would have certainly stopped him from describing creation in modern terms.I wouldn’t be asking him to describe evolution in modern terms. Simply to describe them in phenomenological terms, which he does not do. If he were to describe the creation story completely in phenomenological terms then his description of the creation of man and woman would have been completely different then it actually is. Your argument is that because he is being figurative about the skies we can assume that he is being figurative about everything else. But the problem with that argument is that you refuse to see the difference in account that would be needed to make a safe assumption with that argument. He describes one thing phenomenologically yet he describes everything else culturally. You can not link the two from your own point of view. They are completely different, do you not understand that?
Perhaps you should read the story again and pay careful attention to what it actually says. When Eve gives birth to Seth (at age 130) she says (in 4:25) that "God has granted me another child in place of Abel, since Cain killed him." Seth was son #3. The "other sons and daughters" spoken of in 5:4 were obviously born after the events in Chapter 4. There has to be more to the story.I’m sorry, perhaps I missed the verse that mentions that Seth was the third son born of Eve? What verses do you use to know that Cain was the first child? Could not he have had an older sister? What verses do you use to know that Eve had no children between Cain and Abel? How do you know that Eve had no children after Abel until Seth? There surely could have been a girl born between Abel’s birth and Seth’s. You see Eve says “God has granted me another ‘seed’ in place of Abel.” Which would refer to a male as she was speaking of the seed that would father the line that would lead to Jesus birth. In fact that is what the genealogies state, Seth fathering that line.
So TIME is an illusion then? Do you still use the term? It is not the use of the term that I am referring to it is the assumptions against a false definition of the term. This originally spawned from the term “probability” and I have told you that God knows all yet an atheist does not believe in God so they subscribe to an absolute definition of randomness/probability. Though a Christian should understand the finite definition of “probability” as it only has its use for our finite minds.
And I take it you've gathered this information from your extensive interaction with atheist scientists? Have you even read one book on the subject from an atheist scientist?Actually I have conversed extensively with an atheist physicist, guess what emergence just happens to be right up his alley.
This might have been a philosophical problem in the late 19th/early 20th century, but Modern physics has destroyed any notion of a purely deterministic universe.No it hasn’t, and that is my point, that you fail to realize. Quantum mechanics is not an exact science. One looks at the emergent qualities displayed by various electrons and various tests. They, unable to determine any sort of deterministic method assume that there isn’t one? Fail! What kind of science is that? Is it not possible that our current techniques do not allow us to find out what the mechanics of the deterministic qualities might be?
If a scientist is viewing the ‘emergent’ values of an electron should not their first thought be, “well something must cause it to do that.” It doesn’t just happen for no reason, there is a reason behind the ‘emergent qualities’ once that reason is known one must continue under the assumption of a determinisitic universe because now they can calculate why the electron does what it does.
RBH-
Your definition of free will quickly skips over this idea of you being able to ‘make a choice’. You, being an atheist, I would presume do not believe in the existence of a soul/spirit, that which is an intangible/non physical essence to human beings. So then you have no parts inside of your body that do not work based off of passed causes. You have no more control over your actions then a pin ball forced to go where it goes by the bumpers it hits. Define this ability to ‘make a choice’ in physical terms please. You can not ‘control’ your physical body your physical body just ‘is’. An avalanche is not responsible for the damage it does as it is just a large assortment of molecules all reacting to past causes. Your body is no different. You have no free will and you can only philosophically muse otherwise.
The topic of free will surely wasn’t where I was hoping to take this topic as we already have plenty on our plate, well.. atleast I do.
There is no opposite to free will in an atheistic universe as ‘free will’ is just an illusion just as ‘consciousness’ is as well as ‘moral right and wrongs’ etc…
they are determined by my own perceptual and cognitive apparatus If you state this as being a physical entity and not a spiritual entity then you default back to the lack of free will as your actions are merely the result of past causes. Like I said, you can only muse otherwise.
That question makes no sense to me. If by "deterministic" you mean that we live in a Laplacian universe, then as Gordon has pointed out, you're operating with concepts shown to be false a century ago. The universe is not LaplacianOh really? So then if the universe is not deterministic what is it? You can not know why ‘emergence’ happens and until you do one must default to a deterministic universe as it surely has not been shown false.
Do I think there's some indeterminacy operating in them? Sure -- quantum mechanics assures that.No quantum mechanics does not assure that, the lack of scienticfic knowledge surrounding the topic of quatum mechanics chooses to assume that.
"...the fact that according to your view point it is fictional is where I am making my case." -- Let me try this another way: Ptolemy wrote about the spheres and epicycles of the heavenly bodies. He wrote from within a geocentric context, becasue that was the most up-to-date science of his day. Now, just because his descriptions of the heavens are incorrect doesn't automatically make them fictional per se. The term fiction implies that there was no attempt at scientific or historical accurracy. So I don't think that Moses' description of the ancient cosmos was "fictional" as you say. It has since been found to scientifically and historically inaccurate, but that is different than calling it fiction.
"I wouldn’t be asking him to describe evolution in modern terms. Simply to describe them in phenomenological terms, which he does not do." -- Because evolution is a process, not a thing. A thing, like the sky, can be described as the thing appears. But a process that was unknown in the ancient world can't be described as it appears, even if one could witness it first-hand.
"Your argument is that because he is being figurative about the skies we can assume that he is being figurative about everything else." -- I'll say this again so you can ignore it again: MOSES IS DESCRIBING THE HEAVENS LITTERALLY ACCORDING TO ANCIENT SCIENCE, WHICH WAS BASED ON A PHENOMENOLOGICAL UNDERSTANDING OF CREATION! And my argument is this: since all of the science we find in the Bible is ancient Near-Eastern science, it should be clear that God never intended to speak authoritatively on scientific matters. There is not one scientific idea in the bible that was not already known at the time.
"I’m sorry, perhaps I missed the verse that mentions that Seth was the third son born of Eve?" -- Follow along in your Bible. You can use your fingers if it helps: (1) Eve gives birth to Cain, (2) Eve gives birth to Able, (3) Eve gives birth to Seth to replace Cain, (4) Eve gives birth to more sons and daughters "after Seth was Born" (Gen 5:4). This is what it says and this is the order that it says it. All of your speculation on other sons/daughters and when they were born proves my point exactly: there has to be more to story than what Moses directly relates. That was my whole point in bringing this up. You have to fill in gaps or the creation story doesn't add up historically. Evolution provides many details that necessarily explains how dust can become human in the course of time.
"They, unable to determine any sort of deterministic method assume that there isn’t one? Fail! What kind of science is that?" -- That's actually the "science" of Intelligent Design, not Quantum Mechanics. Your understanding of QD might be laughable, but at least you nailed ID.
"If a scientist is viewing the ‘emergent’ values of an electron should not their first thought be, “well something must cause it to do that.” It doesn’t just happen for no reason, there is a reason behind the ‘emergent qualities’ once that reason is known one must continue under the assumption of a determinisitic universe because now they can calculate why the electron does what it does." -- LOL. You really should read up the topic before exposing your ignorance like that. For starters, try to wrap your mind around Young's Double Slit experiement and then tell me again how these researchers arrive at their conclusions.
"So then you have no parts inside of your body that do not work based off of past causes. You have no more control over your actions then a pin ball forced to go where it goes by the bumpers it hits." -- Again, you are showing your ignorance of complex dynamics and emergence. This isn't just an area of speculation, but one of research and discovery. One need not posit a supernatural substance just because one can't understand how agency can exist in a purely material universe. If I took my computer back in time, somebody would probably say that demons live in this box and cause text to appear on a majical screen. If I told them that inside was just metal and sand, they would probably accuse me of sorcery. Apart from understanding how new properties can emerge from a complex arrangment of ordniary matter, it's easier to just invent a undetectible immaterial substance to cover ones' ignorance: and that is why the Greek philosophers invented the soul. But science is rendering it obsolete.
"You can not ‘control’ your physical body your physical body just ‘is’ -- Really? Then how does a soul, which is immaterial, fix this problem? How does an immaterial substance control an inanimate material? By what process or mechanism does the spiritual connect with the material? Can you please explain that one to me?
"An avalanche is not responsible for the damage it does as it is just a large assortment of molecules all reacting to past causes." -- True, and if I intentionally damaged part of your brain, or knowingly gave you a specific chemical cocktail that caused you to slam your car into bus stop without remorse, I would be the responsible agent, not you. Why is that? Why doesn't your soul just tell your body not to do those bad things? Mind over matter, right? It looks to me like mind IS matter. In fact, I can totally shut down your conciousness by chemically supressing certain reations in your gray matter. What is your soul up to then?
"You can not know why ‘emergence’ happens and until you do one must default to a deterministic universe as it surely has not been shown false." -- Huh? That makes no sense. Please explain. Better yet, read up on quantum mechanics first and then explain what you mean here. Like I said earlier, start with Young's double-slit experiment.
Ok because once I am an expert in science all will become clear and I'll convert right away... Does that sound right?
Instead of responding to everything briefly I'm just gonna try and hit on a few points.
In regards to Moses describing the creation story in phenomenological terms:
Can we agree that Moses did not exist during the creation story? I would assume from your viewpoint, surely.
Moses must have received some sort of inspiration from God to write what he wrote. Can we agree on that?
Presumably God would have given all of the inspiration to Moses in the same way. Meaning God did not dictate a 1/3, give Moses a vision for another 1/3, and take him back in time Ebenezer Scrooge style for the last 1/3. Can we both safely assume that God gave Moses the same type of inspiration (what ever type it may be) to write down the creation story?
You present evidence of phenomenological scientific Biblical discrepancies. According to my memory, all evidences of 'Bible Science' (which you would agree is not authoritative today) are in error because they were described as how the eye viewed them and not how they actually are.
So you are presuming that God told Moses to write the evolution (creation of animals and man) part of the creation this way because it was at the scientific level of all cultures of that time and would have made sense. This part of the arguement leaves the text and must be only supported by musing. You can not argue that from the text, you can only guess. You guess this because you presuppose evolution as truth. Which is fine to hold to that presupposition, just do not try to make a Biblical case for that opinion. The fact that Moses describes the sky in phenomenological terms yet does not describe the creation of Adam and Eve in the same way "as it appears to the eye" presents a problem in your arguement. If we agree that Moses received the same sort of inspiration then you must assume, by default, that Moses would describe his inspiration in the same way OR make note of a switch in style of description. He obviously does not describe EVERY part of the creation story exactly as it would appear to the eye if witnessed first hand. Moses does not make a note in his writing that he has switched forms of description. I think it is plain to see that you have failed to yet make a persuasive exegetical arguement for evolution using the text of the Bible.
Whether or not the description follows what alike cultures were saying at the time is completely irrelevant. That is not in the text and the intentions of God to reveal in that way can only be philosophically mused at and not pulled out of the text.
The only means of arguement that you have to go on is scientific data.
In regards to the Cain Able issue:
Follow along in your Bible. You can use your fingers if it helps."You made the statement earlier that Seth was the 3rd child. Which can absolutely in no way be pulled from the text. You also believe that it wasn't until after Seth that Eve had more children, which you also can not pull from the text. In regards to that specific verse, Gen. 5:4, John Gill as well as Matthew Henry both agree that the text shows that Eve surely did have children between Able and Seth. The fact that Moses leaves these children out is irrelevant, and does not help your arguement that Moses would have "left out everything from dust to image-bearer".
Not that I don't find all of the science we are discussing interesting, it is definitely making us reach some sort of goal with what we started much more difficult.
Really quick question though, that I think will make things easier.
Has research in quantum mechanics proven that there is no reason why emergence happens? In other words, has science proven with out a doubt that emergence is completely random and that their is no system to create its random nature. Or in other words if you don't understand my question yet. Has science proven that emergent qualities do not have any deterministic nature and further research will never find any determinable nature to assume the emergent qualities before they arise?
Hi JD,
"Can we agree that Moses did not exist during the creation story?" -- That statement only makes sense if you believe the 6-days of creation were historical. If they are not, then your question is nonsensical. And since there is no physical evidence that creation was less than 1 week and occured less than 10000 years ago, and since it wouldn't make any sense for God to do it that way only to make it look as if it evolved over 13.7 billion years, I have to assume that the 6-day framework was a literary device that Moses simply comandeered to tell the story; just as he comandeered (or sanctified) the ancient cosmic structure.
"Moses must have received some sort of inspiration from God to write what he wrote. Can we agree on that?" -- Sure.
"Can we both safely assume that God gave Moses the same type of inspiration (what ever type it may be) to write down the creation story?" -- That assumption contradicts the obvious character of Scripture. If what I think you're saying is correct, then all books of the bible should have the same writing style: God's writing style. But we clearly see that each book is unique in that regard. So whatever process of inspiration God used, it somehow did not override the human authors' ability to put things in their own words, using their own language, phraseology, figures of speech, etc...
"So you are presuming that God told Moses to write the evolution (creation of animals and man) part of the creation this way because it was at the scientific level of all cultures of that time and would have made sense." -- No, that's not what I'm saying. I'm saying when Moses makes the point that God created the sky and the heavenly bodies (instead of them being Gods as the pagans believed), he used the common understanding of how the heavens were structured and how they operated, even down to the "windows of heave" from which the floodwaters come later. Along these same lines, when Moses makes the point that God caused the seas and land to bring forth life (spontaneous generation was commonly accepted in ancient times), he describes the chain of life as it was commonly observed by those those cultivated and breed animals: that each creature descends after its own kind.
"You can not argue that from the text, you can only guess. You guess this because you presuppose evolution as truth." -- Lol. Think about what you just said. I can turn this around to you and say 'you can not argue heliocentricism from the text, you can only guess. You guess the earth moves becasue you presuppose that Galileo told the truth.' Evolution is true just as the earth moves around the sun and spins on its axis once per day. And these are not true because the scripture says they are true. In fact, the scriptures would seem to say otherwise IN BOTH CASES. They are true because we have mountains of evidence to support them as being true. When you couple this knowledge with the historical knowledge of what passed for science during the time the Bible was written, it becomes clear that the authors simply used the science of their day as incidental to make whatever theological point God had inspired them to make.
"I think it is plain to see that you have failed to yet make a persuasive exegetical arguement for evolution using the text of the Bible." -- Good. Because such an argument would be futile. Evolution is not in the bible. But so what? A spherical earth that orbits a star is not in the Bible either. And why should they be? These things were not discoverd until 1000's of years later. Why is this concept so hard for you to grasp?
"Whether or not the description follows what alike cultures were saying at the time is completely irrelevant." -- Wow. What kind of biblical hermeneutics is that? Now we're supposed to simply ignore the cultural context of the Bible when it advances our agenda? How would we know what a Pharisee or a Saducee or an Essene was if we were not allowed to examine the cultural context of the New Testament? The New Testament never gives us a lecture on 1st century Judeo-Roman politics! Everything must be interpreted according to its context. Have you never heard this before? How long have you been a Christian?
"The only means of arguement that you have to go on is scientific data." -- Why are you so anti-science? Do you not realize that if you only relied on the bible alone for scientific knowledge you would be no better off than ancient man? Again, show me in scripture where a spherical Earth orbits the sun. I'll show you 67 times where it says the sun orbits a stationary earth. Do you believe the bible or the astronomers? And why?
"In regards to that specific verse, Gen. 5:4, John Gill as well as Matthew Henry both agree that the text shows that Eve surely did have children between Able and Seth." -- Really? The text says "After Seth was born, Adam lived 800 years and had other sons and daughters." And the only children of eve listed before Seth are Cain and Able. The only way you can get other children before Seth is to invent them yourself. They are not in the text.
"The fact that Moses leaves these children out is irrelevant..." -- It's not irrelavent to my point that Moses doesn't have to tell us every single detail of creation.
"Has science proven that emergent qualities do not have any deterministic nature and further research will never find any determinable nature to assume the emergent qualities before they arise?" -- Just by the way you ask that shows me that you don't really know what emergence is, and you don't really know how science works. The goal of science is not really to "prove" this or that.
No matter how many times you measure the gravitational constant, you can't "prove" that it will be the same on the next measurement. Yet, only a fool would use this small uncertainty to question gravity.
Scientists develop constructs, or ideas, or sometimes narratives that take a load of loosly related and seeminly disparate facts (or observations) and tie them together in a coherent a rational framework that creates disciplines of academic study and programs of scientific research.
Absolute logical certainty, even for things like gravity, doesn't exist. All you have are varying degrees of confidence in the ability of a particlar construct, or theory, to produce consistent results. Not only does gravity seem to accurrately describe non-relativistic motion in both the earthly and heavenly realms, it can also be used to predict the future. NASA can fire a rocket from earth and land a package on an asteroid millions of miles away. Because of this, Gravitation has earned a high degree of confidence within the scientific community.
The same can be said of old-earth geology. Not only does is account for the many uniform layers of sediment deposited around the globe, but it allows geological exploration firms to predict where and how deep to drill for mineral deposits. Evolution not only eplains the what we find in comparative anatomy, cladistics, biogeography, paleontology, and molecular genetics, but it provides a logical construct that allows scientist to advance our knowledge of creation. When Niel Shubin set out to find the "fishapod" - a missing link between fish and tetrapods that, according to the theory of evolution, should have existed about 365 million years ago. So, using the geological principles of plate tectonics and biostratigraphy, he decided to start looking in the shallow ancient devonian seas, which are now located in Northern Canada.
If modern geology or the theory of evolution were wrong, he'd still be digging. But nobody was suprised when his team found "Tiktaalik" because it was right where it was predicted to be, according to the theories. As long as old-earth and evolutionary idea continue to bear out in the field and the laborary, they will continue to earn the confidence of the scientific establishment.
And just a side-note: Shubin and his team were obviously excited to find the fishapod, just as the Apollo astronauts were excited to land on the moon, but neither team had any doubts about the science behind their respective missions.
Emergence is simply a term losely used descride an observed phenomenon that can't be explained in strict deterministic and reductionistic terms - that some complex organizations of ordinary matter come together in such a way to have qualities that could not have been predicted before hand. And it's not as though these new qualities were just overlooked, but they, no matter how knowledge was obtained beforehand, could not have logically deduced (like the weather I talked about earlier).
In other words, if one studied the pieces of watch, and saw a diagram of how they all fit together, they could logically deduce exactly how the instrument will behave once it is constructed. But if the watch were to do something completely unpredictable, like glow red-hot and make a buzzing sound as soon as the last screw was installed - that might be considered an emergent property. Sometimes, the natural cause of the new behavior can be necessarily explained post-hoc by the known laws of physics (like a storm that pops up unexpectedly - no laws of nature were violated - but the laws of nature and initial conditions were insufficient to predict the event - and not because of a lack of knoweldge or computational ability, but because emergent properties are non-reductionist/deterministic). But if it can't be sufficiently explained (ie: predicted before hand by logical deduction), then there is something going on that we don't fully understand -- so we give a name and keep studying it.
Now that was a silly example and not even a really good analogy. But I hope it helped. Reductionism, on the other hand, says that everything can be explained by the sum of its individual parts. If something can't be sufficiently explained, its only because we are ignorant of all the facts. For a strict reductionis, reality only exists at the lowest ontological levels. We are just deterministic collections of moleucles, etc... In other words, when you put us all together, we're still basically a collection of molecules. But emergence says that we are something new. We are ontologically unique. We have properties and exhibit behaviors that are more than the simple sum of the parts. Even if you understood every molecule in my brain, you can't know what I will chose to eat for breakfast tomorrow because I am not simply the sum of my physical parts. It has to do with complexity, indeterminancy at the quantum level, and the known forces of nature that seem to be fine-tuned to permit this sort of phenomena with ordinary stuff -- which is exactly what we should expect in a world created and sustained by God.
Some people, out of sheer incredulity or ignorance, will add an additional substance to the human collection of molecules and say that all our complex behavior is a result, not of our complex design, but of this transcendent and undectable substance that dwells in us; the soul or life-force per se.
All I'm saying is that modern science is rendering this elusive substance uncessary. The more we learn about the complex behavior the ordinary world, the less need we have to make up sustances that fill in these gaps in our understanding.
Bah it says I have to may characters. Going to break it into 3 posts.
Sorry for the time between my last reply. Just been quite busy and may also take a while to respond if you respond again.
"Can we both safely assume that God gave Moses the same type of inspiration (what ever type it may be) to write down the creation story?" -- That assumption contradicts the obvious character of Scripture. If what I think you're saying is correct, then all books of the bible should have the same writing style: God's writing style. But we clearly see that each book is unique in that regard. So whatever process of inspiration God used, it somehow did not override the human authors' ability to put things in their own words, using their own language, phraseology, figures of speech, etc...Woah slow down a second. I'm asking can we safely assume that Moses received the same type of inspiration for the first 3 chapters of Genesis.
"You can not argue that from the text, you can only guess. (speaking in regards to cultural significance at the time) You guess this because you presuppose evolution as truth." -- Lol. Think about what you just said. I can turn this around to you and say 'you can not argue heliocentricism from the text, you can only guess. You guess the earth moves becasue you presuppose that Galileo told the truth.' Evolution is true just as the earth moves around the sun and spins on its axis once per day. And these are not true because the scripture says they are true. In fact, the scriptures would seem to say otherwise IN BOTH CASES. They are true because we have mountains of evidence to support them as being true. When you couple this knowledge with the historical knowledge of what passed for science during the time the Bible was written, it becomes clear that the authors simply used the science of their day as incidental to make whatever theological point God had inspired them to make. You obviously missed the point that I clearly made in those 2 sentences that you quoted. You can NOT draw a conclusion from the text that shows that Moses was referring to common descriptions of the creation of the world. Do you have a verse that says something like “I Moses, was told by God, to write this creation account in this manner so you would understand as all of our surrounding cultures also have similar means of story telling.” There is NO verse that HINTS at Moses referring to “cultural common practice”. You choose to assume this because you presuppose evolution as truth. My point is simple, your comment of outside 'common practice' is not mentioned in the creation story.
"I think it is plain to see that you have failed to yet make a persuasive exegetical arguement for evolution using the text of the Bible." -- Good. Because such an argument would be futile. Evolution is not in the bible. But so what? A spherical earth that orbits a star is not in the Bible either. And why should they be? These things were not discoverd until 1000's of years later. Why is this concept so hard for you to grasp?So then you agree that evolution can only be argued from science and that the Bible has absolutely no 'helper verses' for you to even hint at evolution?
"Whether or not the description follows what alike cultures were saying at the time is completely irrelevant." -- Wow. What kind of biblical hermeneutics is that? Now we're supposed to simply ignore the cultural context of the Bible when it advances our agenda? ... Everything must be interpreted according to its context. Have you never heard this before? You make it seem as though you are drawing a valid conclusion but its not because you assume that Moses intended for it to be written like the other cultures. Your point is irrelevant because it holds no ground. I could turn it around and say “People in the past during Moses day also wrote non fiction simply detailing things that happened” So Moses was following that line of also writing it as the surrounding cultures would sometimes write.
"The only means of arguement that you have to go on is scientific data." -- Why are you so anti-science? Do you not realize that if you only relied on the bible alone for scientific knowledge you would be no better off than ancient man? Again, show me in scripture where a spherical Earth orbits the sun. I'll show you 67 times where it says the sun orbits a stationary earth. Do you believe the bible or the astronomers? And why?I'm not anti-science. I'm trying to as clearly as possible show that your argument must be held completely outside of the Bible which is perfectly OK. If someone was going to prove that a Ferrari was faster then a cheetah they wouldn't be able to turn to the Bible to make ANY sort of case for either one as being faster. I just want to make it clear that you base your beliefs of the creation account absolutely and entirely on what you have observed in science.
"In regards to that specific verse, Gen. 5:4, John Gill as well as Matthew Henry both agree that the text shows that Eve surely did have children between Able and Seth." -- Really? The text says "After Seth was born, Adam lived 800 years and had other sons and daughters." And the only children of eve listed before Seth are Cain and Able. The only way you can get other children before Seth is to invent them yourself. They are not in the text.Yes, really. The English text that you rely on as being an accurate translation of the Hebrew language should be quickly understood that it is a translation. If someone said to you “You really should go read a good book, and I need you to pick up some bacon.” Surely you wouldn't think that they are expecting you to read the book before you pick up the bacon. I assume that you have little Hebrew language knowledge so you probably would be better off asking someone or reading from someone that does have that experience which is why I quoted Gill and Henry. Me picking apart your example doesn't get us anywhere and really wastes time. Yet I can't help but do it anyway.
"The fact that Moses leaves these children out is irrelevant..." -- It's not irrelavent to my point that Moses doesn't have to tell us every single detail of creation.What kind of a point is that? I would have no problem agreeing that Moses did not detail the placement of every tree on the earth while detailing the creation story.
Let's start this emergence discussion a little differently. What causes emergence? What causes the collapse of the wave function? Do you or science no why? If so please tell me. If you do not know then please tell me that you do not know.
Some people, out of sheer incredulity or ignorance, will add an additional substance to the human collection of molecules and say that all our complex behavior is a result, not of our complex design, but of this transcendent and undectable substance that dwells in us; the soul or life-force per se.
All I'm saying is that modern science is rendering this elusive substance uncessary. The more we learn about the complex behavior the ordinary world, the less need we have to make up sustances that fill in these gaps in our understanding. Oh this is going to be fun. So you do not believe that God put any sort of spiritual essence in us humans? And that the means to salvation is based off of our ability to admit that we are sinners using our complex behavior which is a result of complex design. (from your view design being evolution from ape creature to man) If this complex design can be merely acquired by a series of happenstance mutations then surely this complex design can be created by an intelligent human being who could quickly speed up the process. Call it a robot. Do you believe that a complexly designed robot can enter into heaven? If not, why? What makes a robot different then a human. From your view a robot and a human do not have any souls, they are merely physical parts. Now if a robot is programmed and designed into having the ability to make conscious decisions can he not realize that he can enter the gates of heaven if he only believes?
"So then you agree that evolution can only be argued from science and that the Bible has absolutely no 'helper verses' for you to even hint at evolution?" -- Yes, of course. But that fact alone does not make it false.
"I could turn it around and say “People in the past during Moses day also wrote non fiction simply detailing things that happened” So Moses was following that line of also writing it as the surrounding cultures would sometimes write." -- Sure, if fiction was a genra that existed during the time of Moses, then you'd have to consider the possibility that Moses could have used that genre. But there are more intelligent ways of reading a text and understanding weather it is prose, poetry, wisdom literature, legal code, mythology, apocalyptic, etc... I've never heard something so naieve as to expect that the text itself should say, "now this part is poety" or "this paragraph is apocalyptic" etc. I've never heard something so absurd.
"I just want to make it clear that you base your beliefs of the creation account absolutely and entirely on what you have observed in science." -- Yes, and so do you. The difference is that I own up to it. Unless you want to renounce your unbiblical belief that a spherical earth orbits the sund and embrace the ancient idea that the heavenly bodies all orbit a flat earth. At least I'm being consistent. You just pick and choose what parts of the bible you want to believe.
"So you do not believe that God put any sort of spiritual essence in us humans?" -- I'm saying that the human characteristics we attribute to "soul" or "sprit" do not exist apart from matter. They are emergent properties of our complex design. You didn't exist before you were born, and your level of conciousness increased slowly as your infant brain developed into toddler brain. And I can alter your conciousness by making physical changes to your brain.
"And that the means to salvation is based off of our ability to admit that we are sinners using our complex behavior which is a result of complex design." -- huh? I thought salvation was based on Christ dying on the cross on our behalf? Perhaps I don't understand your theology.
"(from your view design being evolution from ape creature to man)" -- No, design started at the big bang, not with "ape creatures" or some other pre-human primate. 99% of our geneome was already developed by the time early humans split with early chimpanzee 6 million years ago.
"If this complex design can be merely acquired by a series of happenstance mutations then surely this complex design can be created by an intelligent human being who could quickly speed up the process." -- Absolutely. God could have created the entire world and everything in it just as it exists today. But such a theory has no scientific utility. The theory of evolution, however, provides a material framework by which man can systematically study the created world.
"From your view a robot and a human do not have any souls, they are merely physical parts." -- Nope. A robot can't paint a picture or compose a symphony or make a non-deterministic choice, they can only execute a program. Their neural netowrks are not complex enought to exhibit any emergent properties, such as free will or agency. Even the simplest multicellular creature has a more complex neural network than our most advanced "A.I." machine. Until we invent a "quantum computer" we can't even come close to creating something with agency.
Yes, of course. But that fact alone does not make it false Right, I just wanted to clarify.
Sure, if fiction was a genra that existed during the time of Moses, then you'd have to consider the possibility that Moses could have used that genre. But there are more intelligent ways of reading a text and understanding weather it is prose, poetry, wisdom literature, legal code, mythology, apocalyptic, etc... I've never heard something so naieve as to expect that the text itself should say, "now this part is poety" or "this paragraph is apocalyptic" etc. I've never heard something so absurd.The only means that you choose to create your interpretation is because you presuppose evolution as truth because as you say it, 'you can't ignore all mountains of data'. The only reason you choose to interpret the text as figurative is because of science, you then go on to say that since it is figurative this is probably why it would be. (common culturally)
John 16:25:
"These things I have spoken to you in figurative language; an hour is coming when I will no longer speak to you in figurative language, but will tell you plainly of the Father. “
Matt. 16:6-12 also displays Jesus telling the disciples that he is speaking figuratively.
Luke 3:4-6 Luke quotes Isaiah and explains that his prophecy was not a literal exacting description or future events.
There surely are verses that, the first being a prime example, explicitly state that someone was being figurative. I understand that there are verses that do not state that they are speaking figuratively but it is not a foreign concept to say that one is in the Bible.
"I just want to make it clear that you base your beliefs of the creation account absolutely and entirely on what you have observed in science." -- Yes, and so do you. The difference is that I own up to it. Unless you want to renounce your unbiblical belief that a spherical earth orbits the sund and embrace the ancient idea that the heavenly bodies all orbit a flat earth. At least I'm being consistent. You just pick and choose what parts of the bible you want to believe.No I don't base all of my beliefs of the creation account on science and not the Bible. You yourself have said that I ignore the scientific data. You really are nit picky about those psalms. Sounds like we should get down into this hole and find our way out, or at least attempt to. You seem to think that I have no valid reasons for rejecting what a psalmist says about the universe etc... So lets do this.
Broken into 2 posts:
"So you do not believe that God put any sort of spiritual essence in us humans?" -- I'm saying that the human characteristics we attribute to "soul" or "sprit" do not exist apart from matter. They are emergent properties of our complex design. You didn't exist before you were born, and your level of conciousness increased slowly as your infant brain developed into toddler brain. And I can alter your conciousness by making physical changes to your brain.You keep mentioning that you can alter my consciousness by making physical changes to my brain... ok?
I'd have to say that you are the first Christian I have ever met that does not believe in a 'soul'. Interesting, but theologically scary. Will other animals, if time allows, reach this form of consciousness, and thus have the opportunity to receive salvation?
"And that the means to salvation is based off of our ability to admit that we are sinners using our complex behavior which is a result of complex design." -- huh? I thought salvation was based on Christ dying on the cross on our behalf? Perhaps I don't understand your theology.Perhaps you don't understand the reason why Christ had to die on the cross.
"If this complex design can be merely acquired by a series of happenstance mutations then surely this complex design can be created by an intelligent human being who could quickly speed up the process." -- Absolutely. God could have created the entire world and everything in it just as it exists today. But such a theory has no scientific utility. The theory of evolution, however, provides a material framework by which man can systematically study the created world.I said human being, not God.
"From your view a robot and a human do not have any souls, they are merely physical parts." -- Nope. A robot can't paint a picture or compose a symphony or make a non-deterministic choice, they can only execute a program. Their neural netowrks are not complex enought to exhibit any emergent properties, such as free will or agency. Even the simplest multicellular creature has a more complex neural network than our most advanced "A.I." machine. Until we invent a "quantum computer" we can't even come close to creating something with agency. I'm speaking theoretically and asking a question about the probable future. A robot can not do those things YET. Though in the future do you accept that man could create a robot with the same form of consciousness as us humans? They do not need a soul as you view humans as strictly material in nature. So theoretically a robot could be designed to be the same as a human, which means that you would then accept that a robot can go to heaven?
Also you didn't respond to my questions earlier: “Let's start this emergence discussion a little differently. What causes emergence? What causes the collapse of the wave function? Do you or science no why? If so please tell me. If you do not know then please tell me that you do not know. “
Would you be so kind as to do so now? I think it would greatly help advance this dialogue.
"The only reason you choose to interpret the text as figurative is because of science, you then go on to say that since it is figurative this is probably why it would be." -- For the last time, the origins account in Genesis WAS NOT FIGURATIVE, but literal; according to ancient accounts of origins. Why do you keep insisting that interpret the text as figurative?
"I'd have to say that you are the first Christian I have ever met that does not believe in a 'soul'." -- I do believe that human beings have souls, but I don't believe that it must necessarily be a substance separate from the body. For instance, if one thought that "digestion" was a property of man that transcended his physical body, and a doctor was able to show that digestion is simply a property of the physical body, that does not mean the doctor no longer believes in digestion.
"Perhaps you don't understand the reason why Christ had to die on the cross." -- Because without the shedding of blood their is no forgiveness of sin. And all have sinned and fallen short. And only a perfect sacrifice can attone for an infinite debt. Do you have a problem with this?
"Though in the future do you accept that man could create a robot with the same form of consciousness as us humans?" -- If that ever happends I'll be happy to give you my opinion on it.
"So theoretically a robot could be designed to be the same as a human, which means that you would then accept that a robot can go to heaven?" -- Only if a robot first participates in the resurrection of the saint. But a robot would be man's creation, not God's. I don't see why you are worrying about wheather God has a responsibility to grant eternal life to a hypothetical creation of man.
"What causes emergence? What causes the collapse of the wave function?" -- I don't know. There are various interpretations. Rest assured, people much smarter than you or I are working on this.
"The only reason you choose to interpret the text as figurative is because of science, you then go on to say that since it is figurative this is probably why it would be." -- For the last time, the origins account in Genesis WAS NOT FIGURATIVE, but literal; according to ancient accounts of origins. Why do you keep insisting that interpret the text as figurative?No wrong, for the last time, you yourself, in this modern scientific age, choose to interpret the text as figurative (not literal, or having any modern day scientific authority) to your daily scientific endeavors as well as the advancement of your theology. The reason that you do this is because you presuppose evolution as truth, it has nothing to do with what the text says.
"Perhaps you don't understand the reason why Christ had to die on the cross." -- Because without the shedding of blood their is no forgiveness of sin. And all have sinned and fallen short. And only a perfect sacrifice can attone for an infinite debt. Do you have a problem with this?Does it sound like I do?
Maybe though I do have issue with your theology related to 'all sinning and falling short' in relation to a evolutionary view point. You see if man is not responsible for his sinful nature and total depravity as related to original sin, then God has failed to demonstrate his omnipotent power by creating a being which can do nothing other then sin rather then creating a being with the ability not to sin or “posse non peccare” Augustine talks a bit about 'the problem of evil' in relation to humanity as created and fallen. If one denies the history of the fall of man as depicted in Genesis he then reduces God's nature to that which permits evil. What part of your essence will be maintained in heaven from your view? What about animals who do not even have the ability to sin, they are perfect as they have no laws of conduct that can be broken, so by default do you assume that 'all dogs go to heaven'?
"So theoretically a robot could be designed to be the same as a human, which means that you would then accept that a robot can go to heaven?" -- Only if a robot first participates in the resurrection of the saint. But a robot would be man's creation, not God's. I don't see why you are worrying about whether God has a responsibility to grant eternal life to a hypothetical creation of man.What does a robot being mans creation, not God's, have anything to do with achieving salvation? If there is no spiritual essence to a human, imparted by God, that separates it from a robot, then a robot following the same reasoning can achieve salvation. As you say it consciousness is an emergent quality of our body. With our consciousness we can follow the path to salvation. A robot with a consciousness is no different then a human. They are all material in nature, though different materials, yet the emergent quality of consciousness is shared. There would be no difference and by your current definition of humanity would be locked into agreeing that a robot can achieve that which a human can.
"What causes emergence? What causes the collapse of the wave function?" -- I don't know. There are various interpretations. Rest assured, people much smarter than you or I are working on this. Well lets be philosophical as well as logical about it. Emergence is either the result of a spiritual immaterial essence which drives the emergent qualities, or it is a currently unknown, materialistic process that will be one day discovered and understood. I can not think of any other possible reasons which could cause the current 'unknowns' surrounding emergent thought.
If you can think of more, please tell, and I will respond to them.
Though let us take these two. If emergence is driven by an immaterial essence, which would be interesting to prove with science, then it must be some sort of spiritual thing put into place by God. Though an atheist would never wish to agree that it is driven by a spiritual force as that would beg the question of a God. So then the only option that is left is for the atheist to look to finding a materialistic process to define why emergence happens. With that the only option on the horizon for the atheist, he must quickly realize then he is still in a deterministic universe and has no free will, no moral responsibility etc...The atheist only expects to find that which is non spiritual. It then must be determinable and governed by some set of laws. The atheist can not ever hope to have free will or consciousness as that which is an emergent quality that drives our choices. Only the illusion of those things and the illusion that you are in control of your body.
Post a Comment