That is not what my analogy was saying. I pointed to a metaphysical argument about hierarchal series that I believe show all processes depend on God at all times. This argument assumes those processes occur and are ordered making science possible. That is what you responded to and asked me to subject to scientific testing which was a category error on your part. My bones in the sand are found via metaphysics. Apples and oranges. They have nothing to do with rejecting evolution or not. That should best be done with the metal detector in my analogy unless there was some other tool that somehow showed us its conclusion could not be true. Then we would be in a pickle and that is where many believers find themselves, between a rock and a hard place.
But truth be told, if evolution did require life to be meaningless, deny free will, deny morality, deny the self, etc., I would reject it as self-contradictory nonsense on metaphysical grounds. But it is scientists that over reach that do those things, not science itself. I believe more strongly in the dignity and worth of human beings than I do in the principles of science if push comes to shove. Christian first, everything else second.
And the image made me laugh. I think we are all guilty of that.
2 Likes
T_aquaticus
(The Friendly Neighborhood Atheist)
22
Ahh, it appears the mixup in communication is my fault. My apologies.
Then I guess itās a good thing it doesnāt, and I fully support criticism of scientists who overreach in these areas.
For a high school sophomore biology class. where about a third of the class was on the track team, I likened natural selection to qualifying rounds at a track meet.
I get told āI heard it on Novaā about evolution and I just ask, āWhat is their goal?ā I usually have to supply the answer: theyāre out to make money, which puts quality control in second place.
nice post Vinnieā¦ the problem i see in the above question is as follows:
The overall theme of the Bible is one of Creation, Corruption, Redemption, Restoration
The story of the bible is recounted largely as an historical account of the plight of manā¦his walk in parallel with the plan of salvation God initiated after the fall.
Moses statements about Creation, The Flood, and the destruction of Sodom and Gomorah are repeated by Christ and the Apostle Peterā¦there is simply no credible theological argument against the notion that Christ and Peter treat those events as historical.
The genealogies throughout both testaments of the bible allow no room for allegorical beginningsā¦one cannot pretend to ignore the real in order to make something fit just because apparently, our observational science doesnt align with the history of the Bible.
We have a number of proofs that evidence the issue thereā¦hittites being point and example, the finding of the dead sea scrolls and various other artefacts proves significant portions of bible history that science previously denied.
The Apostle John in the book of Revelation provides a finale for the overall biblical themeā¦if one was to really believe in the allegory of Genesis (the beginning), then the crucifixion and resurrection of Christ, the Second Coming, and the New heaven and New Earth in Revelation 21 ( the finale) would also be allegoricalā¦but they simply arent written that way.
ā ā ā ā . my flight home is boardingā¦will have to cut this short.
So you at least agree in principle that God could have used small, successive steps to create humans via evolution if He wanted to but you feel scripture teaches God didnāt create this way. I think that is the essential issue for most Christians. āI fully understand why Christians would say hey, Iām going with what I think is the word of God over the science of man.ā I think that either or is based on too wooden a view of scripture.
Agreed generally on one. Itās really about God and his story with humanity. We rebel and separate ourselves and He bridges the gap.
This is a bit vague. The Bible consists of discreet publications put together. Some of them may be historical works and some of them not. Genre can differ from book to book and even within books. But I do not think narrative functioned the same way for ancient people as it does us today. But I agree. If you asked the apostles was Abraham real, was Moses real, was Noah real, did the Exodus happen, etc., they would all probably say yes. But a good case can be made that Genesis 1-11 is a different sort of literature from the other parts of the Bible. I think many of the Biblical stories in the OT are based on historical events but given the existence of doublets, itās hard to imagine they happened exactly as narrated nor did the original compilers think this either.
Sodom and Gomorrah have nothing to do with evolution. You are mixing up topics. If you accept Genesis 1-11 as literal history, yes, it and evolutionary origins are mutually exclusive. But Moses didnāt write the Pentateuch and itās doubtful Peter wrote 1 Peter (and he was dead for a hundred years before 2 Peter was written). But 1 Peter is scripture and yes, it certainly subscribed to a literal flood that only saved those the Bible says. I think the more important issue is the question of Jesus and the flood. I have put my thoughts together here:
I start by laying out the evidence which you will hopefully appreciate. The cliffs are Jesus is not actually teaching the flood occurred but appealing to an event that was cultural background knowledge at the time to teach a point about being prepared for Godās arrival. I distinguish between what the Bible assumes as background knowledge and what the Bible teaches via that background knowledge. I think the latter is more important. Jesus nowhere taught the flood is real. He was not trying to convince flood skeptics the event was historical. What he did do is appeal to general knowledge of the flood to teach a point. I believe we should be focused on the point Jesus was making, not the background knowledge he appealed to in a prescientific culture 2.000 years ago.
I agree that the Bible after Genesis treats Adam as a real person that existed. Itās certainly not easy but some have sought to try to fit Adam and Eve into an evolutionary framework for this reasonāand more importantly because Paul links Adam and Jesus. I donāt think there is an easy answer here but I can only say I go from what is clear to what is not clear. Evolution seems true, the Bible is Godās word, Jesus is Godās son that saved us. How can I fit these truths together. I just donāt start with the lens of sola scripture. I believe God reveals himself through the natural world (science) and philosophically (metaphysics) and also vis scripture. Most Christians subscribe to both general and special revelation. So I believe we have two books. The Bible and the book of the natural world. I try to treat both with respect and see how they fit together. Both are from God.
That has nothing to do with evolution or creation. Because some historian was skeptical of a portion of the Bible that turned out to be true has no logical connection with what 99.9% of all biologists and universities believe is overwhelming evidence for evolution. The issues are separate and this is sloppy thinking.
Have you ever stopped to consider that even if Genesis 1-11 is āallegoricalā it can still be true? Adam and Eve represent all of us. The story teaches that humanity (you, me and everyone) really needs redemption as we are separated from God. Thus, the Biblical story of separation/corruption and redemption is in tact.
If a terrestrial creature moves to utilizing aquatic environments, getting food or escaping predators by swimming, we can crudely predict what kind of features will be beneficial for the creature. If we have some kind of grasp of what kind of competitors and predators are likely to be present in the ecosystem, and what kind of food sources are available, we could make quite good predictions of how the appearance of an average individual in the population would change.
We could also make some predictions about what kind of speciation is likely, based on what kind of resources are available. For example, small crustaceans and large fish are two resources that provide opportunities for different kinds of creatures.
There is always a possibility of a black swan effect, something unexpected happening that changes the game, but otherwise, pretty straightforward prediction work.
Like you, @T_aquaticus and @rsewell, I find āfilterā a more useful and accurate term. Linguistically āSelectionā implies intent, which implies a consciousness intending.
We were probably still talking about āsurvival of the fittestā when I was in school. Outmoded, but conceptually more meaningful and accurate for the person on the street, who either lacks a science background, or whose science education is in the far distant past (as is mine).
If the thing lives, it can pass on its dna. If it doesnāt, it canāt. Death is a powerful filter.
Incorrect ā it is a theological account that occasionally refers to history.
Itās almost amusing that you regularly harp on the ordinary use of language but utterly ignore it when needed to maintain your theology. Whether or not āChrist and Peter treat those events as historicalā is not a theological question, it is a use-of-language question ā and the ordinary use of language does not support your claim.
When are you going to stop using this strawman argument? Youāre the only one talking about allegory.
And the genealogies have nothing to do with beginnings in the first place.
Science never denied any āportions of bible historyā ā it isnāt even capable of doing so.
You really need to get clear in your head that science isnāt some kind of religion.
Your claim is not logical because you are talking about different books. All of Genesis could be allegory and it would not affect anything about the Incarnation at all. To claim so is to argue an unChristian position. Christ is the center, not Genesis.
Correct, which is what I said. The Bible is only considered valid data to some people on the question of human origins because they think it is inspired. Otherwise they would not read a mythological narrative and think it answers scientific questions.
I think it is interesting that psychology is not one of those you have listed. Of course, intention, planning, and deliberation will always be a part of our understanding of human behavior. And yet I think we have been finding evidence that it isnāt quite as āteleologicalā as we might have previously thought, or at least not in the way we thought. Our arguments look more like justifications for conclusions we have already chosen. And then there are the experiments showing many of our choices are made before we are consciously aware of them. This doesnāt exclude free will since it can just make those choices less conscious ā less deliberative than we assumed. On the other hand, free will itself doesnāt work out so rationally as a time-ordered teleological process.
Communication is more than just a string of words. It involves context and sometimes things are quite obviously explicit. There was a dialogue taking place. This is what I was responding to:
@T_aquaticus In my experience, it is exceedingly rare to see someone who rejects evolution and also offers interpretations of actual data. Instead, we see no data whatsoever and long list of assertions, feelings, and beliefs.
I assumed he meant actual scientific data. He is correct that many who deny evolution are not professional biologists and do not understand the relevant data, and cannot adequately dialogue with it. I simply pointed out believers who reject evolution think the Bible is data. I didnāt say āfor human originsā because that is implied by the context of the discussion. We all know the Bible is data at least for what some Christians believed 1900 or so years ago. Why do I need to spell something so remedial out for you to understand what I am saying? Is English your first language or are you reading this forum in a different language? Do we have a language barrier here? For the concordist who denies evolution, they are appealing to data: biblical data, just not scientific data. Most Christians and people in general donāt know science well enough to begin with to deal with scientific data. They are still entitled to their opinions. The ones who mock evolution as nonsense in ignorance are annoying though.
Well, although I think that is missing the point of the analogy, since it was about things changing over small increments and still being functional, the role of an intelligent mind wouldnāt be a problem for theistic evolution/evolutionary creationism, technically.
I think if we look at Genesis 1-11 alone this is obvious. Genesis 1 is clearly rearranging ANE furniture along with the second account (although maybe less obviously). But when you add the rest of the canon, other literature from 2nd temple Judaism, along with Biblical genealogies and statements made by Josephus and Christians throughout the ages, itās not so obvious this reading is wrong.
I mean, we who take inspiration serious do have to explain why Paul, who was given a special appearance by Jesus and specifically appointed by God to preach to the Gentiles and write a large swathe of the NT makes a clear argument about Jesus and Adam that really works much much better when Adam is a real person. I know you can accept a historical Adam and deny Genesis 1-3 is a concordant description of reality but how is not so obvious to most people.
That Adam and Eve are real and a global life ending flood occurred are very viable Biblical interpretations. They are the default and historical interpretations and were it not for science both of them would have even less of us attempting to interpret them differently.