It could have been worse. He could have spelt it ‘Sheila’.
Creationists quote-mine so often it’s to be expected that any quote they produce will be mined.
For example:
Here’s part of that article that @graft2vine didn’t quote:
Until the beginning of the 20th century, almost all the Classical Hebrew known was in the Hebrew Bible. Since then, the discovery of various inscriptions like the Siloam inscription and of literary texts, especially the Dead Sea Scrolls and the Hebrew book of Sirach Ecclesiasticus, have expanded the quantity of material in Classical Hebrew by about one third.
@graft2vine’s source confirms that his ~9,000 word count for ancient Hebrew vocabulary is indeed based on the number of words used in the Bible, so he was comparing the number of Hebrew words in the Bible with the number of English words in use, as if there wasn’t any Hebrew vocabulary not used in the bible.
Comparing the number of Hebrew words in the bible (~9,000) with the number of English words in the KJV (~12,000) completely demolishes the claim that “Hebrew has a much more limited vocabulary and so the words have a wider range of meaning.”
1 Like
Even if we had never discovered the theory of evolution it would still be true that the less fit have fewer offspring than the more fit. Without the theory you would still have predation and parasitism, as well as social species where cooperation is vital for their survival.
I’ve always found this criticism of the theory to be completely moot. Whether we have the theory or not, there is still competition within and between species. It’s a fact of biology and the universe.
1 Like
It is certainly true that evolution (i.e., natural selection) does not require “ruthless” deaths and red claws, but even the evolution of “cooperation” is ultimately based on a positive net payoff to the cooperating individual which increases its individual fitness. Ultimately, natural selection occurs because of competition over limited resources, although that competition need not be overt and bloody…
but as @T_aquaticus noted above, even without the theory of evolution, one must account for the observations of predation and parasitism in nature.
Yes, evolutionary “success” reflects self-interest towards genetic success. Thus it includes cooperation where both individuals gain and actions where an individual sacrifices themselves to benefit genetically similar individuals (e.g., female mussels that get eaten by freshwater drum, thus getting the parasitic larvae onto the drum’s gills; honeybees stinging in the interests of their colony even though worker bees do not survive after stinging), among other possibilities.
But this contradicts the popular notion. It is in my evolutionary self-interest to spread my genes as much as possible, no matter how weak and unfit I may be. There is no goal in evolution of improving the species. Predators catch whatever individual they can. They are not seeking to improve the prey species by weeding out the unfit. They are seeking lunch.
As both of you noted, complaining about evolution being unpleasant seems to miss the fact that unpleasant experiences are a significant part of life, no matter what process brought them about. But much depends on one’s attitude. Darwin thought that ichneumon wasps and other parasitoids had a cruel life pattern. But others have appreciated the ecological balance they bring and the control of pest species. If we assume that God is in charge and knows what He’s doing, then we can praise Him for the wisdom, power, and creativity that we see in creation while trusting that He knows what He’s doing in the parts that we don’t see why.
3 Likes
Totally agree that the public’s popular perception of “fitness” in the biological sense is often incorrect. It does not necessarily mean “the physically strongest” or “most physically aggressive”. If a fish living in a dark cave can save energy by diverting it from growing eyeballs into forming more eggs, and thus outcompete others of its species, there will be selection to do so, as shown by blind cavefish… a loss of a physical ability.
3 Likes
And the most limited resource of all are desirable mates. If one is too weak and unfit to survive, of course he is out of the running, but discriminating sexual partners are looking for more than mere survivors. All that peacocking, dancing, singing and croaking is flaunting great genes. Then there is always jealous lethal combat. As the evolutionary biologist Rod Stewart sang, “Some Guys Have All the Luck. Some Guys Have All the Pain”. Reproductive success is the ultimate factor in natural selection.
2 Likes
If there is one rule in biology that looks to be true, it is that 100% of living organisms had ancestors who reproduced.
I would argue that these types of moral and ethical considerations (i.e. theodicy) have been kicking around for millennia, even predating Christianity if my understanding is correct. I have no interest in pursuing these concepts, but I do think it is worth mentioning they predate Darwin by thousands of years.
1 Like
Ha! Very true. In some species “female choice” plays more of a role than in others. Other times it is male-male competition. For example, yes, in lekking galliformes such as grouse or peacocks, females assess male traits and choose the “greatest quality” mate. Other systems like harem holding Red Deer, the harem holder is determined by male-male competition and the harem females have little direct choice of the male they will mate with, although presumably it is a “greater quality” male who was able to outcompete rivals.
3 Likes
Such a narrow and human view of the Universe.
Once the pattern of life and death has been set, what follows is amoral, neither good nor evil.
Freedom comes at a cost. The cost being the risk of death or injury be it from predator or just plain stupidity. Remove death, you remove life (living). Remove risk and you remove adrenaline and other chemicals that make up human life. You really can die of boredom!
You cannot justify Evolution with the life and death cycle. If nature is a reflection of God, then Evolution should reflect his values and nature. it does not. So, perhaps, there is more to it than science can see or understand. That is not to deny evolution completely, Instead it acknowledges something scientists are reluctant to admit, except in times of false humility:
That science cannot know everything, or get it always right.
Sorry and all that.
Richard
What I think we are pointing out is that some people reject evolution because it includes a life and death cycle. I guess they would accept Evolution if it stated all organisms are immortal?
In what way does Evolution not reflect God’s values and nature?
1 Like
I’ve always said, “If you’ve got enough spare energy to play on a Nintendo, you’ve got enough energy to evolve.”
George Kistiakowsky, the chemist who helped develop the shaped charges used to initiate the atom bomb, was once asked about his decision to recommend a mathematician to help on the Manhattan project. “Kisti,” the man asked, “Why would you want to hire the man that stole your wife?” Kistiakowsky replied, “Good wives are easy to find, but a good mathematician…?”. That’s a story I heard from one of Kistiakowski’s post-docs.
1 Like
Much depends on the attitude, that is true. Not only your attitude but also the attitude of your teachers because attitudes are infectious.
One of my colleaques is an exceptionally inspiring teacher, full of enthusiasm for the topics he studies and with a very positive attitude. He has studied those ichneumon wasps you mentioned. Before he started to teach, the topics ecology students wanted to select for their master’s thesis were often something related to large or cute mammals or birds, practically none about parasitic wasps. After the fellow started to teach about the ichneumon wasps, half a dozen students told me that they want to make their master’s thesis about ichneumon wasps because these wasps are so interesting and cool.
Makes me think what kind of attitudes and enthusiasm I am transmitting to those that listen…
2 Likes
Theodicy is indeed a venerable topic. Job, Ecclesiastes, and Habbakuk focus on it, and various other writings from the ancient Near East also wonder about it.
Certainly science does not know everything. As Ecclesiastes, Job, Romans, etc. point out, information from observing nature doesn’t help much theologically. Evolution works as a way to create a diversity of kinds of organisms. Knowing on theological grounds that God is in control, we can recognize evolution as an example of God’s wisdom even though we don’t know why He didn’t create in another way. But that’s inferring from the theology, not from the science. Various animals do things that are not appropriate for us. “Go to the ant, you sluggard” does not mean “Duh, do anything ants do.” If you know on theological grounds that you ought to be more diligent, the ants can serve as a useful reminder. But don’t go live in a hole, raid picnics, kidnap other people’s kids and raise them as slaves, try to lift stuff much heavier than yourself, or crawl on six legs. All evolution can say is “this works for them”, not “you ought to” nor “this is OK for you to do.”
3 Likes
I think this is because Western theology and philosophy are making arguments from the top-down, whereas working with how the world works is a bottom-up direction. We hope that our top-down philosophical constructs will connect to the bottom-up scientific construction but that ‘grand unification’ of the empirical with the metaphysical doesn’t seem likely anytime soon.
I suspect a root issue in many cases is that we’re making something like a category error where the metaphysical definitions don’t map to the physical. But that’s just wild speculation on my part.
2 Likes
But God isn’t in control of ToE. It is self contained. There is no room for God in ToE other than as a starter.
Richard
God is no less in control of evolution than of any other physical process. It is not self-contained. Evolution is not even self-contained scientifically; it depends on the laws of physics, chemistry, etc.
Again, if you make it clear that you are talking about an atheistic or deistic view when you say ToE, that communicates what you mean. But insisting that everyone else has to mean atheistic evolution when they specify that they do not mean that does not help communication.
If we believe that God is working out all things according to His purposes, that includes “natural” events. The Reformed-Arminian spectrum in theology produces a range of views on how tightly God controls events, what is predestined and what is free will, etc. But God works in “natural” events; biological evolution is nothing more or less than a well-supported pattern of biological change. Of course, plenty of people try to spin it into having other implications, but that’s not science.
4 Likes
If you include God in Evolution it is not ToE. Why can’t people see that?
If God controls the speciation then Survival of the fittest is obsolete. if Survival of the fittest is correct then God is not controlling the result, it is.
There is no ambiguity, or lack of communication, only lack of understanding concepts. ToE and God are incompatible unless
- God only started it and let it run
- The changes are not random but controlled (But that is not scientific)
Scientific Evolution does not allow for God, it cannot. And, because of this it tries to describe how things change without His help.
I do not understand how you or anyone else can say that.
Richard
I would strongly suggest you check out this article*: Chance, by Design - First Things
Scientifically random and control by God are not mutually exclusive.
*credit to @TedDavis for pointing out this article.
1 Like
Really? I translate as ‘on’ and you say I’m misusing it when ‘on’ is included in the range of meaning.
This is the same character ב that you now say means “in” which was not included above.
In any case, you have these same problems when you claim that the firmament is a solid dome in the sky. Birds cant fly in something solid and the sun, moon and stars cant move in a solid dome. It is not the luminaries themselves but the light/lights that shine upon the firmament.
Hardly as God goes on to say they are greater and lesser.
If its only talking about the light, the intensities of the light and not the luminaries themselves, much less naming them we are also insulting the Egyptian gods. So my interpretation still keeps yours intact. And not naming the luminaries supports that we are not talking about them or acknowledging them. They are false gods.
(853. אֵת eth) - Not typically translated; used as a direct object marker
Topical Lexicon
Overview
אֵת (eth) appears more than eleven thousand times across the Hebrew Scriptures, functioning primarily as the untranslatable marker that flags a definite direct object. Though silently rendered in most English versions, its presence guides readers to recognize what, precisely, is being acted upon, thereby sharpening narrative clarity, reinforcing covenantal specificity, and underscoring theological emphasis.
It look to me that what is being acted upon is that this lesser light (can also translate to younger) is made to ‘rule over’ the stars. I’d think that also would be a nice insult to the Egyptian ancient star gods… I assume those are also gods? The stars (made as part of the heavens in the beginning) are not made here but are just being ruled over.
The initial light was “free” in that it was being scattered by cloud cover. The source of the lights, the luminaries themselves can now be seen in the heavens, but it is just the light from them that is now made to be ‘on’, ‘in’, or shining directly upon the firmament/earth.
This core meaning works for me as this light is being transferred… is in transit from the source of the light to the surface of the earth.
And I’m laughing with you because this really is God’s sense of humor. I am awestruck by how the meaning of the names and their timeline lines up so well with scientific estimates. In fact, it flips ‘God of the gaps’ on its head as the common decent time line of Arphaxad (monotremes) is 153 mya, Shelah (therians) is 130 mya, and Peleg (placentals) is 106 mya. All science can say is that our common decent with all of these is somewhere between 160-80 mya. So the Bible is filling in the gaps of science.
I was not quote mining. Qoute mining is taking part of what someone says and twisting it to make it sound like they said something else. I was looking up how many words were in the first century Hebrew language, and that 9,000 number was what was given. I looked at multiple sources and they all had about the same number. You are not saying that I need to read the full article to glean a number from it are you? I also quoted the article and provided the link for you.
By ‘creationist’, I hope you are not lumping me in with YEC. I am EC like many here. I believe that evolution explains the process of how God created us and that Genesis 1-11 is allegorical. In addition, I believe the genealogical allegory just happens to accurately point to the common decent of all life.
What I quoted and bolded is that that 9,000 was extended to 14,000. Still a very small vocabulary for a language. Before the Dead Sea scrolls, the Hebrew Bible was the entire known language.
That says nothing other than that the KJV translators did for the most part, try to use that same English words for each Hebrew word to translate, a concordant approach.