An analogy for evolution

Faith & Science Conversation
62

If A&E were one couple in a large human population then we would have no scientific way of ruling them in or out, that much is true. What the evidence does rule out is the human population solely emerging from a single couple a few thousand years ago (i.e. traditional YEC).

That would be a belief, not data, at least in my eyes. Anyone can approach the Bible from an academic standpoint, so there is nothing elitist about it. They can also approach the Bible from a faith based position.

I think it is obviously a claim, not data. If there is no difference between claims and data then anything we dream up at the drop of the hat can be data.

I think there should be some sort of separation between assertions and data. Otherwise, we can’t make any sense of reality.

63

As I said, you are free to disagree with them. But that is the thinking Adam and Eve are based on by Bible believing Christians who have embraced and old earth and/or evolution. For you to dismiss them as H, whatever that is, is just you showing you don’t understand the basics (which is why they are explained–apparently–insultingly to you) or you just ignore them and pontificate on high (Pope Richard). Pick your poison.

It is also my personal belief that everything everyone writes here is our own personal belief unless we are specifically describing the beliefs of others.

You seem to think scripture was inspired by God in the same way an artist is inspired by a mountain that he or she paints. Most Christians go beyond this. I can’t have a meaningful dialogue about the interpretation and application of scripture with you when we so fundamentally disagree on its nature. In essence, you don’t believe scripture is actually scripture. This is just apples and oranges and there is no point in discussing it further. I would like to ask you how you address the following question though.

What separates canonical and non-canonical works? I mean all these texts were written by believers who had encounters with God:

  • Epistle of Ignatius
  • Letters of Clement
  • Didache
  • Gospel fo Thomas
  • Gospel of Basilides
  • Gospel of Mary
  • Gospel of Judas
  • Gospel of Peter
  • Greek Gospel of the Egyptians
  • Gospel of the Hebrews
  • Gospel of the Nazarenes
  • Gospel of the Ebionites
  • Gospel of the Twelve
  • Gospel of Truth
  • Gospel of 4 Heavenly realms
  • Gospel of Marcion
  • Writings of Justin Martyr, Irenaues, Polycarp

These were all written by, you use your quoting system, “inspired” and “believing” Christians. There are simply tons of Christian writings from the same time all the NT works were being composed (1st and 2nd century). There are dozens of other gospels and infancy narratives we know of now. Here are two screenshots from Peter Kirby’s site

image
image1826×1356 291 KB

image
image1826×1356 291 KB

You have a really big Bible. Do you have a cutoff year or is any book, even those written today, scripture since it is written by a “believer?”

It is not the most common view but there are modern theologians who subscribe to an atemporal fall. There are formulations of sin going back to before the creation of the world. In fact, Origen, an early church father, influenced by Platonism no doubt, thought the fall of spiritual beings led to the creation of the material world. The world didn’t fall in our time, its always been fallen and the fall led to its creation. Some modern theologians do subscribe to that view.

You are overgeneralizing with Jews. At the very minimum, Jesus was a Jew and he clearly believed in petitionary prayer. Q.E.D. Also, the practice of modern Jews and ancient Jews might differ. And I think you are either just blatantly lying or delusional in claiming Jews don’t believe in petitionary prayer.

I’ve made all the same arguments in the context of atonement debates. Sin is an action. It’s something you do like running or jumping. You can’t pass on running or jumping to someone, only teach them how to do it. I have moved away from the certitude of my own logic and understanding. I think the fall and sin exist on a deeper level than such reductionist attempts to atomize terms to requires. I do believe there is a spiritual aspect to man that goes beyond the material world including our mind. I see the struggle with sin as real in Romans 7:15-25 and the battle between spiritual forces as part of the Christian life. I think sinning is something we do but I believe there is a part of it that impacts our spiritual and non-material aspects and that makes it broader in scope.

2 Likes
64

They believe scripture is God’s word. Just as the scientists believe in uniformitarianism. Both might point to what they perceive is data in favor of them. Both may end up being circular. I really don’t now. But science has its own built in presuppositions in my mind. I wouldn’t say scientific data is not data because its methodology has presuppositions. The definition of data is “things known or assumed as facts.” I think for the Bible believing Christians, this fits the bill perfectly. The Bible is considered a valid source of data about the external material and spiritual world. You could of course disagree with them.

Seems helpful but this is a larger philosophical issue. None of us is the sole arbiter of what constitutes data in any person’s life. We can only agree or disagree as groups on what we think represents accurate data and there will be no way for all of us to agree. If you think the Bible is inerrant and written by God you will see its facts as valid data for explaining the world and might even think it the highest authority there is. If you don’t you will naturally disagree with this.

You seem to want to call data those facts that are empirical. I think it would be easier for people to communicate better if they distinguish between types of data and realize some data is empirical and some data is theological or faith based but we all have presuppositions built into our worldviews.

And I would naturally reverse everything you have written in this post and use it against your subjective view of morality. To use your own words, anything we can dream up can be moral. I’d argue (or at least opine) that morality or getting it right is also way more important than getting questions about the origin of humans correctly.

Vinnie

65

:sunglasses:

Hubris

Disagreement is not misundersanding or lack of understanding.

Now that is an insult.

Just because i dae to disagree with you and your understanding of christianity, I am not a Christian?
or
Just because i dae to disagree with your view I am claiming to be the Pope?

And?

(but not me of cours)

You are claiming that your blief about Scripture is the only possible one!

Oh dear, did i contradict you?

Diddums

That is the usual undrstanding of inspiratio, so i guess it will do.

Faith by proxy or consensus?

Or personal (rhetorical)

You are putting words onto my mouth that i do not say.

A committee around 4AD

(Cynical)

You realise thqt the exact canno is still disputed worldwide? And that excludes the Apocrypha.

Why do you go to church (if you do) What’s the point? You may just as well read the bible and your own understanding. it’s not as if all the sermon is diect from Scripture!

I have the same Bible you have, and I both study and preach from it/
Tell me. If i use an illustration from Star Trek a I being blasphemous?

As for the fallen world…

Go out and smell the roses.

And as for Paradise (The Garden of Eden) we would die there. Humans need to work, exercsie, use their brains, have sex, take off their clothes, and so on.

paradise is a wwyth that goe way beyond Scripture, but as a scientist you should know all this.

Human vanity plaes humanity abov the world and its problems an workings. Human vanity, not God.

And it was considered outrageous! Can’t you see that!

God acted out of compassion, not because the Jews cried out to Him. That is Scripture. How long were they praying before the Exodus?

And look at how they reacted even then! They did not thank God, they moaned at Him!

Read it!

Understand the mids of the Jesw. And understand why God got so fed up with them!

Congratulations. Then how does that work with Original Sin? It doesn’t!

You afe trying to reconcile Original Sin with what you know sin is, (and failing)

The world is how God made it. Humanity may be trying to destroy it (not deliberately) but they have no corrupted it or made it something God did not want.

But not as Paul sees it. Paul looks at is a a slaver. That would make it not our choiice. The whole point of the garden Narrative is that Adama and Eve denied reposibility. Sin is a choice. Nothing more, nothing less.

Obviouslhy it affects us. It has to. But thtat is the whole point of the cross that you seem to overlook.

The Cross is God’s version of a free lunch. Take it.

Richard

66

We observe that the laws of physics are constant through time and space. That’s not a belief.

I am careful to say these are my views, and I do respect your responses and beliefs. And you are correct that we are hitting on larger philosophical issues, perhaps the most foundational philosophical issues there are. Any metaphysical system requires us to define what the axioms are and what we can determine to be true or false on their own merits. What is the difference between knowledge and belief? What do we just have to assume is true?

What wouldn’t be data?

But that’s not how it actually works, is it? We all have a very ingrained sense of morality, and the basics of that morality seems to be shared by the vast majority of humans. While it is still a subjective morality, it appears to be a shared subjective sense of morality.

I also wouldn’t describe my views on morality as data. They are my beliefs of how I think the world should be.

2 Likes
67

“Hypocrisy”, I suspect.

68

Interesting. I will contrast it with the attitude that we had in open discussions/arguments in both grad school and university: that others were arguing from logic and data and didn’t necessarily believe the position personally – I can remember more than just a few such discussions ending up with, “So what do you really believe?” (and not infrequently getting a shrug and a response along the lines of “Heck if I know.”)

Heh – that’s linguistically backwards, projecting a current use of a term into its past. The modern use WRT artists derives from an originally metaphorical use.

Indeed by the definition that Richard seems to use, this counts as scripture:

A Psalm of the Designer

Evolution declares the glory of God,
and the chromosomes in cells proclaim His handiwork!
Day to day pours out research,
and night to night reveals studies.
They have no speech, they use no words;
no sound is heard from them,
yet their message has gone out to the whole earth,
and their words to the ends of the world.
He has set a tent for DNA,
which sends its messengers out from its chamber
like strong men they run their course with joy.
Its reach is from the birth of the Earth,
its circuit all around it,
and there is no life apart from that reach. selah

O Lord, our Lord,
how majestic is your name in all the earth!
You have set your glory within the cell.
When I look at all life, the work of your fingers,
the nucleus and the mitochondria§, which you have set in place –
What is man that you are mindful of him,
and the son of man that you care for him?
You have made them a little lower than the angels
and crowned them with glory and honor.
You made them rulers over the works of your hands;
you put everything under their feet:
all flocks and herds, and the animals of the wild,
the birds in the sky, and the fish in the sea,
all that swim the paths of the seas.
Oh Lord, our Lord,
how majestic is your name in all the earth!

§ or, “the plants and all animals”
1 Like
69

I’ve always been a bit fascinated by the Platonic view, that Adam and Eve were the truest expression of the essence/substance of humanity, so that when they erred what happened was that that essence was changed in all humans. It’s a bit metaphysical and “'way out there” for folks today, but it’s a view that can be found in the Fathers. One of the Fathers (forget which) likened it to a stream with ink poured in; the ink enters in at one point but spreads to everything downstream (which doesn’t IMO quite catch the Platonic view).

I always point out that John 1:29 says that Jesus “is taking away the sin (τὴν ἁμαρτίαν, [tayn ha-mar-TEE-ahn), accusative singular) of the world”. It doesn’t say “sins”, it says “sin”, as though it is something that is shared by all.

No, it wasn’t. What was considered outrageous was the manner of His prayer, which dared to address God as the head of one’s family (note: “Abba” could be rendered as “Papa”, but it must be kept in mind that the term referred not necessarily to the head of a nuclear family but also to the oldest living member, e.g. a boy would refer to his great-grandfather [if living] as “Abba”, and so would that boys’ father and grandfather).

Not according to Paul.

This is just part of why the “Pope Richard” label gets used: you feel free to toss out or ignore any part of scripture you please, and then tell others they are wrong for paying attention to that part of scripture.

1 Like
70

Given the choice, I’ll go with the God-breathed view. Rather than dismiss Paul, you should seek to learn from him. Rather than reject the idea that sin is slavery, you should ask in what way it matches slavery, whether as a metaphor or what.

1 Like
71

And you get that from the text?

Why then does He make such a fuss about asking God for things? (and expecting an answer)

:sunglasses:

Romans 1
For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made,

God’s nature, not man’s.

I wonder if you ever actually think past the lteral? You claim to understand context, but refuse to see Paul’s words as having a context?

I do not tell you you are wrong. You tell me that i am, but I do not reciprocate.
I tell you how i read it, but that is not good enough for you. I must agree with you!

Romans 8
For the creation was subjected to frustration, not by its own choice, but by the will of the one who subjected it, in hope 21 that[h] the creation itself will be liberated from its bondage to decay and brought into the freedom and glory of the children of God

Of course God had to do it because of the sin of Adam(sarcastic)

Man is so powerful and dominant and…

(vane)

Romans 2 this tme
You, therefore, have no excuse, you who pass judgment on someone else, for at whatever point you judge another, you are condemning yourself, because you who pass judgment do the same things. 2 Now we know that God’s judgment against those who do such things is based on truth. 3 So when you, a mere human being, pass judgment on them and yet do the same things, do you think you will escape God’s judgment

You condemn me for the way I understand Scripture. Perhaps you should look to your own undersanding.

I hope that God does not condemn you for your condmenation, but that is not up to me.

Perhaps you would like to justify your views? (preferably to God, I guess)

Richard

72

Rearranging grains of sand–simple. Rearranging biological information–exceedingly complex. The analogy fails.

No sand castle is formed by natural processes only. If you come across a sand castle on the beach, you know it is the work of an intelligent agent. And if you take the analogy further, natural processes will soon destroy it.

73

(bold mine)

Exactly – as a Lutheran theologian put it, God made this world, but this is no longer the world that God made; it is in “bondage to decay”.

1 Like
74

Biological information is rearranged one ‘bit’ at a time, equivalent to one sand grain.

2 Likes
75

And yet we see information being rearranged in every generation in all species. We also see evidence of these same processes being responsible for the differences between the genomes of different species.

4 Likes
76

That is not what that passage says.

It says that God made this world

So here is the thing.

i quote Scripture to you and you throw it back in my face.

Paul said that God’s nature can be seen in creation. Not when created, but now. This second. So if the world is corrupt then that is the reflected nature of God!

I am not the one disputing Paul here, you are!

You take the passages that fit your corrupt view and ignore all the passages that claim that God not only made this world but holds it in His hands. I could quote you so many passages it would make your head spin and still you will claim that your view is right!!

I have also quoted you before now Romans 14, whereby Paul admits that there is not one way to view of what god wants. But you claim there is but one!

I claim that I am not holding the only possible view. You claim there is but one!

I even quote you scripture that tells us not to cast judgement or to condemn! You claim other wise!

I am holding an olive branch but you snap it in two!

I know the Holy Spirit. I know God. How dare you cllaim that I am wrong!

I am not the one pontificating and claiming that I am right! You are!

Richard

77

Added a few more details… sorry, I couldn’t help myself.:grin:

image
image1816×558 137 KB

78

It’s exactly what the passage said; it’s a quote – the world is in bondage to decay.

Faulty logic. Just because something is damaged doesn’t mean that the nature of the one who designed it can’t be seen.
You don’t get to cut out pieces of verses that you don’t like.

I didn’t ignore anything. You just can’t grasp anything beyond your binary views.

79

:rofl:

My views are binary!

I am the one who objects to black & white theology or views. I do not hold them!

But, then again, you never back up these claims of yours.

And that is what you see?

You claim scientific knowledge and view and you accept such a ridiculaous view of the world like that!

Death is not only part of the cycle of life it is an essential element, but i should not have to tell you that.

You reject Genesis 1 on the grounds of poor scientific understanding and then just accept Paul’s equally ignorant view without question or critique!

:confounded:

Richard

80

Why do you set up science as an idol above scripture?

Nonsense. I don’t care about science when it comes to Genesis, I care about the text.

I have respect for the work of the Holy Spirit. Whoever said it recently was right: at root you don’t see scripture as scripture. You have no clue what “inspired” means, and ignore Peter’s description of it.

2 Likes
81

And what is Old Earth then?

:rofl: :+1:

The holy Spirit did not write the Epistles any more than it wrote Genesis 1!

Apologies to the Moderstors but Hipicritical sums this up perfectly.

It was probably you.

The root of your problem
(and last time i looked 2 Tim was not written by Peter!)

It is you, not me, who imposes his will (theology) onto Scripture.

Scripture is what it is. It is not what you want or even need it to be!

You do not have respect for the Holy Spirit. You worship Scripture as if it was God. It is not God in any shape or form. It is about God.

And now i am not laughing.

RIchard