OUR FEATURED ARTICLE: Do Talking Snakes Exist? by Rusty Entrekin

[Trout]

Do Talking Snakes Exist?

by Rusty Entrekin

In this brief excerpt from the mockumentary Religulous, read how Bill Maher slyly entrapped unsuspecting Arkansas Senator Sen. Mark Pryor. My comments are interjected in blue.

Maher began with the question, "Do you believe in evolution?"

Senator Pryor answered, "You know, of course, I don't know. Clearly the scientific community is a little divided on some of the specifics of that, and I understand that -"

Maher (interrupting): "I don't think they are."

Senator Pryor: "No, I uh, well-"

Maher (again interrupting): " I think they pretty much agree."

The truth is that Senator Pryor was right. While most scientists think that particle to species evolution (macroevolution) has happened, a significant minority do not, and among those who believe in it, there is still much conjecture and disagreement regarding the specifics of how it could have happened. Comparing DNA sequences has only deepened the disagreement, since most of the sequence comparisons do not match Darwin's concept of the tree of life. This was Darwin's idea that all life is descended from a common single-celled ancestor.

Senator Pryor: "I don't know how it all happened. I mean, I'm certainly willing to accept -"

We weren't there when it happened. So how could we really know how it all happened... unless we had a truthful and trustworthy eyewitness account to rely on? Wait a second! Isn't that what Christians and Jews believe God has provided for us in the Genesis creation account? In his next comment, however, Maher makes it quite plain that he doesn't think that account can be relied upon.

Maher (interrupting once again): "It couldn't possibly have been Adam and Eve 5000 years ago with a talking snake in a garden, could it?"

Within this simple question, there is a lot of communication and implication going on. Maher could have been more direct and asked something like, "You don't actually believe Jesus rose from the dead, do you?" but expressing disbelief in a talking snake is a much less sacred target, and less likely to offend. The intended effect of the question is the same, however, and that is to engender doubt.

By saying, "It couldn't possibly," Maher is making it clear that he thinks the dominant philosophy of the day in science, metaphysical naturalism (the belief that there is no supernatural) is the only rational thing to believe. That old logical fallacy so commonly used by clever protagonists in debates, argumentum ad populum (if most people believe it, then it must be true) is being put to quite skillful use here. And so is another technique, an appeal to fear. With the question framed in that way, Senator Pryor might have thought, "What will people think of me if I admit to believing the Genesis Creation account?" For this reason, Senator Pryor's next statement took some courage.

Senator Pryor: "Well, it could have possibly been that."

Right again, Senator Pryor. If there is a God and there is a devil, then it could have possibly been that. Isn't it downright conceited and arrogant of metaphysical naturalists to imply that their view is the only one that could possibly be true? Without having the divine quality of omniscience themselves, how can they honestly claim to know that there is no God or supernatural, and therefore that all accounts of the supernatural and miraculous could not possibly be true? On the other hand, if God were to truly reveal himself to someone, then that person could honestly claim to know that there is a God without one iota of arrogance or conceit, just as he could claim to know that his mother exists without any presumption at all. Theists, it seems, do have an upper hand in that respect.

Maher: "Come on. See this is my problem, I'm trying -"

Senator Pryor: "Yes -"

Maher: "I mean, you, you're a Senator. You're one of the very few people who are running this country. It worries me that people are running my country who think, who believe in a talking snake. Um -"

Now I wonder, how many times did Senator Pryor get asked about talking snakes in town hall meetings when he was running for office?

We're having enough trouble enforcing the constitutional qualifications for office that already exist. We can't get Obama to show us his long-form birth certificate to prove that he is a natural-born US citizen, for instance. He's spending a small fortune to keep it and his educational documents concealed. Nor can we get our government officials to require him to verify that he meets this qualification - I suppose because they are so enamored with him. Who cares about qualifications, as long as he's so good looking and such a smooth talker? (Many naive young ladies have ended up in disastrous marriages by following that philosophy, by the way.) And now Bill Maher wants to add yet another qualification - disbelief in the Genesis creation account - to this list that we can't enforce?

I can actually think of valid qualities to look for in our elected leaders. Things like whether or not they will fight for the poor and needy; whether or not they are just and moral persons; and whether or not they will refuse bribes. Since the Bible teaches that political leaders and judges ought to have these character qualities, we have some hope of finding them in men and women who accept the Genesis creation account.

In fact, when I come across a politician who rejects the Bible, I naturally wonder, is this person a moral relativist? And if so, just how flexible and "convenient" will his or her morality be when tempted or under pressure?

A person who believes the Genesis account holds that man is created in the image of God, and that human life is therefore of great value. An evolutionary leader, on the other other hand, could adopt the mentality, just as Stalin and Mao did, that human life is expendable because we are merely evolved animals. While most evolutionists value human life more than that, there still seems to often be a devaluing of human life that occurs when one accepts evolutionary theory. It seems to me that those who accept the Genesis creation account are the most active in pro-life causes, but those who do not are more inclined to to accept abortion. The abolitionist movement against slavery was also permeated with devout Christians.

I feel much safer with elected representatives who believe in the Genesis Creation account, because I know they will ascribe to high moral standards, and we might even find some who, by the grace of God, manage to live by them. And I think a significant percentage of the American people feel much as I do about it. That is why it is tough for an openly atheistic candidate to get elected. So politicians who are closet atheists, and I suspect there are more than we realize, pay lip service to belief in God, but with no concern at all for actually obeying Him.

Senator Pryor (laughing and interrupting): "You don't have to pass an IQ test to be in the Senate though."

What a humble and humorous reply!

Later, Bill Maher described Senator Pryor as "As a very nice man" on the Larry King show. And he really does appear that way in the interview. But did that stop Bill Maher from putting this interview in Religulous?

If you want to hear this interview excerpt first hand, a link to it is available here.

So there you have it. Living proof, caught on video, that talking snakes do still exist, at least of the species comedian reptibillious maherhisser!

The full video has positive points, poking fun as it does of cults and their leaders, money-grubbing televangelists, faked manifestations of spiritual gifts and violent Islamic fanaticism. But to me, these positive aspects are far outweighed by the negatives. I recommend that you avoid renting it (I'm quite sorry I did), since Maher indiscriminately throws the baby of good, true and pure religion out with the bathwater (I doubt he thinks such a thing even exists), and it is laced with inaccuracies, profane language and images. In it, the tragically depraved condition of Maher's heart is unveiled, and I found that to be the most disturbing thing of all. Furthermore, despite his claims, it seems quite obvious in the video that Maher is not on an honest quest for truth, but rather a Quixotic mission to advance his agnostic worldview, which comes suspiciously close to being outright atheism.

Is it really irrational to think that there was a talking snake in the Garden of Eden? I should like to say a few words in defense of the multitudes of people, including myself, who do not think so.

Orchestrated Symbolism

You may recall that in the Genesis creation account, God placed two trees in the garden of Eden:

And out of the ground made the LORD God to grow every tree that is pleasant to the sight, and good for food; the tree of life also in the midst of the garden, and the tree of knowledge of good and evil. - Genesis 2:9

Allegory and symbolism do not necessarily rule out historicity. God knew that man would eventually sin in one way or the other. Knowing this, could He not have intentionally planned the circumstances, and the striking symbolism, of that tragic event?

Think of the two trees, for instance. One was designed to grant eternal physical life, and the other to bring about aging, suffering and death. These have obvious symbolism. Could not these things, along with the serpent, have been actual historic objects and events, planned and intended by God to import symbolism and deep meaning?

Of course, sly and cunning men aside, reports of talking snakes seem to be quite rare. And the obvious intelligence of the writer of Genesis compels us to believe that he recognized that snakes, though crafty, do not, under normal circumstances, speak. And so we quite reasonably suspect that the writer of Genesis intended us to infer a sinister intelligence and power behind the serpent.

As we read the Bible, our suspicion is confirmed. And lest there be any doubt, the very last book of the Bible makes the identity of that sinister intelligence very clear:

And the great dragon was cast out, that old serpent, called the Devil, and Satan, which deceiveth the whole world: he was cast out into the earth, and his angels were cast out with him. - Revelation 12:9

So come on, Bill Maher, let's be fair. We all know that snakes can't speak by themselves. The real question is, "Could the most powerful and majestic of God's created angels, like a puppeteer with a puppet, have utilized a serpent as his mouthpiece?"

Many snake species today produce audible hisses. When I was a boy, exploring a pasture behind my Grandmother's home, I came upon a huge water moccasin, coiled and ready to strike. I may not have seen him in time had he not warned me with loud, audible, frightening hisses.

The normal amplitude of human speech is about 60 dB. A study was recently performed which determined that the rattlesnake produces a hiss at the very same amplitude. Most snakes hiss at an average frequency of 7,500 Hz, higher than the human speech frequency range. But some species hiss at a frequency that is lower. The frequency range of the rattler is from 400-4,700 Hz. The average frequency of the Cobra hiss is 600 Hz. The frequency spectrum of human speech ranges from 80 to 1100 Hz .

Therefore, the hiss of the cobra and rattler do overlap the frequency range of the human voice. Is this starting to sound more within the realm of possibility now? There's more.

While serpents themselves do not have the cognitive ability to produce human speech, that brilliantly clever and powerful chief of the fallen angels, who in Job 1:17-19 caused fire to fall from heaven and a mighty wind to bring down a house, could have caused certain structure(s) of the serpent's breathing passages, such as the tracheal diverticula, which function as resonating chambers in certain species of snakes, to vibrate in intelligible frequency patterns as it hissed, either by controlling nerve impulses, as the demons did when they caused the herd of swine to run into the sea in Matthew 8:32, or by direct manipulation.

Or, Satan could have simply made the air vibrate within the serpent's mouth.

Though scripture teaches us that Satan's hands are handcuffed by God, and He can only perform such deeds when granted leave, do not think that he is not fully capable of a limited degree of control over the physical creation when permitted. It is an ignorant mistake to underestimate the power or the intelligence of the angels, whether fallen or unfallen. One day, Scripture foretells that Satan will perform similar events again to promote the Antichrist, healing that man after a death wound, causing an image of him to speak, and making fire to rain down from heaven.

So why, you may be wondering, have you heard no reports of Satan causing snakes to speak today? Perhaps God normally does not permit it. But even if God were to permit it, Satan would be much too clever to do so in any way that could be verified. That would prove skeptics like Bill Maher wrong, and why would the Devil want to do that? Besides, Satan doesn't need to go to all that trouble now. He has plenty of men who are more than willing to speak for him, and some who are even capable of doing so without a teleprompter or a speech writer!

Yes, the real power behind the talking snake in the Garden of Eden is also behind the many men and women who speak with a forked tongue today! And although this might have surprised the Indians of colonial days, it's not just the white man who sometimes speaks with a forked tongue. Although the devil can't find that many Bible believing folks willing to go to work for him, he is an equal opportunity employer, looking for and hiring willing mouthpieces from every race, sex, tongue, tribe, and man-made religion. And lest we be politically incorrect, let's especially not forget gender orientation.

Was Satan trying to wrest control of the physical creation from Adam and Eve by tempting them to sin? If so, when he tempted Jesus in the wilderness, he indicated that he had achieved that aim:

And the devil, taking him up into an high mountain, shewed unto him all the kingdoms of the world in a moment of time. And the devil said unto him, All this power will I give thee, and the glory of them: for that is delivered unto me; and to whomsoever I will I give it. If thou therefore wilt worship me, all shall be thine. - Luke 4:5 -7

What was intended to be ours was robbed from us when the human race was very young, like an inheritance from a toddler. But even then, God told the serpent that He would not endure this injustice.

And I will put enmity Between you and the woman, And between your seed and her Seed; He shall bruise your head, And you shall bruise His heel. - Genesis 3:15

The word "Seed" here foretells the virgin birth, because Adam's seed is not mentioned. It is a reference to Christ, who was descended from the woman.

Regarding this, Matthew Henry wrote, "Christ baffled Satan’s temptations, rescued souls out of his hands, cast him out of the bodies of people, dispossessed the strong man armed, and divided his spoil: by his death, he gave a fatal and incurable blow to the devil’s kingdom, a wound to the head of this beast, that can never be healed."

Whose Side Are You On?

What about you? Whose side are you on? That of the talking snake? I sure hope not, because the Bible teaches that when Jesus returns, this world will be wrested out of Satan's hands, and given back to those it was created for. Satan will be thrown into prison at that time:

And I saw an angel come down from heaven, having the key of the bottomless pit and a great chain in his hand. And he laid hold on the dragon, that old serpent, which is the Devil, and Satan, and bound him a thousand years, And cast him into the bottomless pit, and shut him up, and set a seal upon him, that he should deceive the nations no more, till the thousand years should be fulfilled: and after that he must be loosed a little season. - Revelation 20:1-3

At that time, all of the politicians, kings and judges who disregard God - just the kind Bill Maher seems to be looking for - will also be in for a rough time:

Be wise now therefore, O ye kings: be instructed, ye judges of the earth. Serve the LORD with fear, and rejoice with trembling. Kiss the Son, lest he be angry, and ye perish from the way, when his wrath is kindled but a little. Blessed are all they that put their trust in him. - Psalm 2:10-12

And it shall come to pass in that day, that the LORD shall punish the host of the high ones that are on high, and the kings of the earth upon the earth. And they shall be gathered together, as prisoners are gathered in the pit, and shall be shut up in the prison, and after many days shall they be visited. -Isaiah 24:21-22

Christian theologians call this thousand year reign of Christ (which may be symbolic of an even much longer period of time) the Messianic Kingdom, or the Millennial Kingdom of Christ. When it begins, I sincerely hope that through faith in Jesus the Messiah, you too, dear reader, will have a place in it. I hope that for Bill Maher, too, even though in fun, I did call him a comedian reptibillious maherhisser for what he did to Senator Pryor.

For evildoers shall be cut off: but those that wait upon the LORD, they shall inherit the earth. - Psalm 37:9

Please, take the psalmist's advice. Don't side with the evildoers. Stick with the good guys - those who wait upon the Lord. That sage advice applies to you too, Bill Maher! If you have read this, Bill, I hope I've gotten you to think of the talking snake account as within the realm of possibility. Or failing that, to regard it more along the lines of plausible-sounding science fiction than silly myth.

As for me, I am not at all ashamed to freely admit that I believe every single word of it. Yes, every single word, and for many more good reasons than I have gone into here. Instead, what sounds like silly myth to me are the ideas that evolutionists and naturalists are promoting nowadays. Ideas like,

The entire universe, complex life and all, springing into existence from... a vacuum!

The exact, precise mathematical values and laws needed for life in the universe originating by... pure coincidence!

The right kind of Sun, the right planetary mass, the right distance from the Sun, the right size and distance moon, the right chemical constituents, the right magnetic field needed to support life, all occurring... also by sheer coincidence.

The mind-boggling complexity required for the even the simplest conceivable self-replicating cell happening... all by chance!

Intelligence and consciousness arising from... unconscious matter!

The moral sensibilities of mankind having no basis in the dictates of a thoughtful Creator, but being relative to cultural convention. If that is the case, then who are we to say the Nazis were wrong? That was their morality, by cultural convention!

Mathematically, it is exceedingly improbable that any of these things should have happened in any given universe, as most scientists freely admit. They have to hypothesize a vast number of universes (a multiverse) to bring the odds down. And yet, we really don't know if there are any other universes. So believing in them is, well - a matter of faith. There is only one universe that we know to exist, and in that one, we know that all of these things are very, very, very, very improbable. (And by the way, if those four adjectives seem tryingly repetitive, there aren't nearly enough of them. Truthfully, a million would still be inadequate to describe the odds.)

Do you want to trust in what you know - that it is highly improbable that a universe like ours could arise naturalistically - or in the hypothetical speculations of metaphysical naturalists?

So Bill Maher, I'm going to ask you a question similar to the one you asked Senator Pryor. "Come on. Do you really believe in something so highly unlikely? You wouldn't invest your money in a company that had only one chance in a thousand of succeeding, would you? Then why bet your very soul on odds we know to be vastly - and I do mean vastly - implausible?"

But back to the Messianic Kingdom. The Bible says it will be a time of universal peace, even in the animal world:

The wolf and the lamb shall feed together, and the lion shall eat straw like the bullock. - Isaiah 65:25a

And what of the snake? What will he eat? Dust!

And dust shall be the serpent‘s meat. - Isaiah 65:25b

Now doesn't that sound fitting?

[Thereisnospoon]

While Bill Maher can be downright anti religious, and his approach is usually offensive, he's got one thing right. The vast majority of scientists accept evolution. Gallup's 1991 poll showed that 95% of scientists (including non-biologists) accept evolution, with biologists above 99%.

"Macro" and "micro" evolution, besides being outdated terms from the 1800's, are defined as such:

Micro-evolution: evolutionary change involving the gradual accumulation of mutations leading to new varieties within a species.

macro-evolution: major evolutionary transition from one type of organism to another occurring at the level of the species.

Both have been observed directly. Use google to look up examples of what is called speciation.

You go on to say that "most of the sequence comparisons do not match Darwin's concept of the tree of life" as if Darwins book is the standard that science goes by when it comes to evolution theory. Theories are improved with increased evidence. This is a result of the scientific method, and it keeps science from becoming dogmatic. Darwin, of course, formulated his theory before the discovery of DNA. DNA actually provides some of the strongest evidence of common ancestry.

Next, you say "We weren't there when it happened. So how could we really know how it all happened... unless we had a truthful and trustworthy eyewitness account to rely on? Wait a second! Isn't that what Christians and Jews believe God has provided for us in the Genesis creation account?"

Of course no one was there when it happened. But we can still know it happened from the evidence. Direct observation is not always possible. Take, for instance, electricity. We cannot actually see electrons, and yet we see the evidence of them. In evolution, we see Endogenous Retroviral DNA insertions in the same spots in humans and chimps etc.

What is interesting is your logic concerning creation.
"Genesis is true. How do we know? Because God provided it. How do we know God provided it? Christians and Jews believe it. Why do they believe it? Well, because God provided it of course."

Next, you proceed to commit a Burden of Proof fallacy.
"Without having the divine quality of omniscience themselves, how can they honestly claim to know that there is no God or supernatural, and therefore that all accounts of the supernatural and miraculous could not possibly be true?."

Repeat after me. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

Of course its possible that the supernatural exists, and that God created everything willy nilly.

It's also possible that the universe was created during a sexual experience between two deities. Boom chicka dow wow. Both deities have a divine climax, and poof, our universe was born. Both stories have the great characteristic of not being disprovable. What then, is the reason for believing one over the other? A book?

next, "The mind-boggling complexity required for the even the simplest conceivable self-replicating cell happening... all by chance!"

Please, please, please. Read a biology book. Evolution only deals with life once it is here, not the origins of life- that is Abiogenesis. Abiogenesis is perfectly debatable and does not have the overwhelming evidence that evolution has.

My favorite quote here is "We can't get Obama to show us his long-form birth certificate to prove that he is a natural-born US citizen." Check USA Today. He has.
http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2009-07-27-obama-hawaii_N.htm

Finally, "I feel much safer with elected representatives who believe in the Genesis Creation account, because I know they will ascribe to high moral standards."

You think that because a person believes in your special creation story is more fit for office than a person who does not? :lol:.

The rest of your post is speculation and wild assertions on the origins of the universe, a false dichotomy between God and Science, absurdly arguing that snakes can talk without a voicebox as long as they are possessed by a spirit and a heinous botching of cosmological physics mixed with you preaching.

1) The origins of the universe is a speculative argument which I don't have the time to debate.
2) Science tells us WHAT happens and HOW. It doesn't get into the WHY. If there is a God, then the Big Bang was simply how He/She/It did it. Etc.
3) I don't think the snake thing requires my input.
4) Google the "anthropic principle". Arguing that the universe is "fine tuned" for life is a shaky argument on the grounds that life can only exist in an incredibly small part of it.

Picture this. One hundred billion galaxies. One hundred billion stars in each galaxy. Even if the conditions on Earth represent one in a billion, there is a pretty big chance that there are life suitable planets besides our own. Whether life (whatever you define it to be) on Earth came from organic chemistry, panspermia or a divine deity, it has since evolved into the complex array of varieties we see today. That much is not disputed by scientists.

Also, realize that the universe is not governed by human "common sense", and that vacuum fluctuations, however weird the idea, have been confirmed:

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn16095-its-confirmed-matter-is-merely-vacuum-fluctuations.html.

Enjoy your day.

[Athanasius]

While Bill Maher can be downright anti religious, and his approach is usually offensive, he's got one thing right. The vast majority of scientists accept evolution. Gallup's 1991 poll showed that 95% of scientists (including non-biologists) accept evolution, with biologists above 99%.

You realize this is classic argumentum ad populum, don't you?


"Macro" and "micro" evolution, besides being outdated terms from the 1800's, are defined as such:

Micro-evolution: evolutionary change involving the gradual accumulation of mutations leading to new varieties within a species.

macro-evolution: major evolutionary transition from one type of organism to another occurring at the level of the species.

Both have been observed directly. Use google to look up examples of what is called speciation.

The definition you have chosen of macro-evolution is conveniently narrow. Where did I ever say that speciation does not occur? Most creationists believe it does occur within created kinds, which we call barayim. How else do you think the limited number of barayim on the ark could have given us the rich variety of species we have today? But despite speciation, a canine is still a canine and a feline is still a feline. There has been no macro-evolution from one barayim to another. If you want to refute us, then it would be good to take aim at what we really believe, not a straw man.


You go on to say that "most of the sequence comparisons do not match Darwin's concept of the tree of life" as if Darwins book is the standard that science goes by when it comes to evolution theory. Theories are improved with increased evidence. This is a result of the scientific method, and it keeps science from becoming dogmatic. Darwin, of course, formulated his theory before the discovery of DNA. DNA actually provides some of the strongest evidence of common ancestry.

Have you read some of the latest articles concerning sequence homology? Do a quick Google. As a result of new research, Darwin's tree of life has given way to something more like a "web of life," making the theory of descent from a common single-celled ancestor very messy.


Next, you say "We weren't there when it happened. So how could we really know how it all happened... unless we had a truthful and trustworthy eyewitness account to rely on? Wait a second! Isn't that what Christians and Jews believe God has provided for us in the Genesis creation account?"

Of course no one was there when it happened. But we can still know it happened from the evidence. Direct observation is not always possible. Take, for instance, electricity. We cannot actually see electrons, and yet we see the evidence of them. In evolution, we see Endogenous Retroviral DNA insertions in the same spots in humans and chimps etc.

These may be explained by the affinity of retroviruses for certain "spots" in the genome rather than common ancestry.If an insertion happened in one species, it can happen in another.


What is interesting is your logic concerning creation.
"Genesis is true. How do we know? Because God provided it. How do we know God provided it? Christians and Jews believe it. Why do they believe it? Well, because God provided it of course."

I did not say that. It was not very honest of you to place that in quotes. I do not hold to my faith because of the circular logic you falsely ascribe to me.


Next, you proceed to commit a Burden of Proof fallacy.
"Without having the divine quality of omniscience themselves, how can they honestly claim to know that there is no God or supernatural, and therefore that all accounts of the supernatural and miraculous could not possibly be true?.Repeat after me. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

I say we cannot know there is no God, and you say I am committing a burden of proof fallacy?Let me apply the same standard to Maher's statements. Isn't it a rather extraordinary claim for a man to imply that there could not possibly be a God? Say "I believe there is probably no God," but please! Swollen balloons are just asking to be popped.


Of course its possible that the supernatural exists, and that God created everything willy nilly.

It's also possible that the universe was created during a sexual experience between two deities. Boom chicka dow wow. Both deities have a divine climax, and poof, our universe was born. Both stories have the great characteristic of not being disprovable. What then, is the reason for believing one over the other? A book?

See, even you acknowledge it is possible there is a God.


What then, is the reason for believing one over the other? A book?

Um...I don't really need to go into the reasons why classic monotheism is preferable to what you have proposed here, do I?


next, "The mind-boggling complexity required for the even the simplest conceivable self-replicating cell happening... all by chance!"

Please, please, please. Read a biology book. Evolution only deals with life once it is here, not the origins of life- that is Abiogenesis. Abiogenesis is perfectly debatable and does not have the overwhelming evidence that evolution has.

Then you should have no quibbles about me debating it. And as to the implication that I've never read a biology book? I'm going to be gracious and lift my fingers from the keyboard right now.


My favorite quote here is "We can't get Obama to show us his long-form birth certificate to prove that he is a natural-born US citizen." Check USA Today. He has.
http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2009-07-27-obama-hawaii_N.htm

Having a government official verify that it exists is not the same as releasing it and permitting us read and examine it. So no, he has not shown it to us.


Finally, "I feel much safer with elected representatives who believe in the Genesis Creation account, because I know they will ascribe to high moral standards."

You think that because a person believes in your special creation story is more fit for office than a person who does not? :lol:.

You cut off the last half of my sentence, and placed a period where there was no period. That was not playing fair. Read the last half of it and you will see my reasoning.


Picture this. One hundred billion galaxies. One hundred billion stars in each galaxy. Even if the conditions on Earth represent one in a billion, there is a pretty big chance that there are life suitable planets besides our own. Whether life (whatever you define it to be) on Earth came from organic chemistry, panspermia or a divine deity, it has since evolved into the complex array of varieties we see today. That much is not disputed by scientists.

Read the probabilities. Even taking a hundred billion galaxies times a hundred billion stars into account, the odds are still so small as to be well nigh impossible. Why do you think naturalistic cosmologists have felt the need to hypothesize a multiverse?


Also, realize that the universe is not governed by human "common sense", and that vacuum fluctuations, however weird the idea, have been confirmed:

Demonstrating they exist does not demonstrate the universe arose from one. And I agree with you that the universe is not governed by human common sense. It is governed by orderly laws and described by precise mathematical values, without which life could not exist. There is uncommon (improbable) sense to it, a lot of it. So...where did this "sense" - a synonym for orderly logic or arrangement, come from? (BTW, the word cosmos owes it's etymology to the Greek word for an orderly arrangement).


Enjoy your day.

Thanks! There is nothing that can make a day more enjoyable than walking with God. As the Bible says, "in your presence is fullness of joy, and at your right hand there are pleasures forevermore." I encourage you to open your mind to the idea of the universe having been created by a transcendent metaphysical intelligence. He believes you exist. So why not do yourself a favor, and return the favor? :smile:

[Athanasius]

BTW, the inks and italics that were in my original article are missing. Moderator, can you grant me access to add them in?

[Faramir]

You may need to PM trout to see if he can help you with the links.

[Thereisnospoon]

"You realize this is classic argumentum ad populum, don't you?"

Absolutely.

I made no such argument. I was showing the statistics to counter your statement that a "significant minority" disagrees with what you define as "macro" evolution. No such "significant minority" exists.

And...there is no difference in the mechanics of "micro" and "macro" evolution. Macro is simply outside of the species barrier, micro is within. Please cite a credible scientific source that says otherwise. Hell, cite a credible scientific source that still even uses the terms.

Also, your barayim hypothesis is impossible. It is estimated that there are anywhere between 5-50 million species on Earth. To be fair, we'll say 15 million. It's laughable to say that a few "barayim" would produce that number in a few thousand years fresh from the Ark. Not to mention the millions of other species that have gone extinct. How many events of speciation would that involve per year?

That's a little trick I call math.

"These may be explained by the affinity of retroviruses for certain "spots" in the genome rather than common ancestry. If an insertion happened in one species, it can happen in another."

Nope. Experiment after experiment shows absolutely no affinity for specific spots in the genome. Viruses are pretty damn random after all.

And... why is it that every time we look at species that are considered closely related, we see that they have the same ERV insertions? Chimps and humans, mice and rats. All confirmed by retroviral insertions. Even if your hypothesis is given the benefit of the doubt, and retroviruses have an affinity for certain spots in the genome, it would still be the same Retroviral DNA found, meaning that we should expect to see completely random combinations of different viruses and thus different ERV DNA in different species

True science= Look at the evidence, draw the conclusion. Not, choose a conclusion, ignore evidence against it, and devise nutty hypothesis to protect it.

"As a result of new research, Darwin's tree of life has given way to something more like a "web of life," making the theory of descent from a common single-celled ancestor very messy."

Evolution by means of natural selection remains the backbone of modern biology, with decent from a common ancestor still the best explanation for the variety of life on Earth. It is independently confirmed by many different and unrelated sciences such as biochemistry, geology, paleontology, zoology etc.

Single celled organisms still appear in the Archaean period, dinosaurs in the Mesozoic and early hominids in the Cenozoic.

Funny that we don't find fossil squirrels in the Cambrian.

Of course, after the flood, we should expect to see rabbit fossils with Triceratops fossils, as they died next to each other. Or footprints next to each other. But we don't.

"Um...I don't really need to go into the reasons why classic monotheism is preferable to what you have proposed here, do I?"

Yes. Suppose I write a book, and I end up converting 1 billion people to my new religion that preaches the "happy ending" creation story instead of the "poof, stuff exists" version in monotheism. No doubt I'd have my clever apologists arguing against you, and tons of people giving subjective testimony of their conversion to my religion. Looking at the world's religions, and you may realize that this is what happened to at least one of them. And a lot of them have been around for a loooong time. At one point a rational person realizes that classic monotheism has no advantage over pure myth.

"I say we cannot know there is no God, and you say I am committing a burden of proof fallacy?"

That was my fault. I misread your comment.

"Then you should have no quibbles about me debating it [abiogenesis]. And as to the implication that I've never read a biology book? I'm going to be gracious and lift my fingers from the keyboard right now."

Debate abiogenesis? There would be no debate. It doesn't have the mountain of evidence that common ancestry does. Your speculation is as good as mine.

As far as reading a biology book, unfortunately books by the Discovery Institute or Answers In Genesis don't qualify as biology. Biology is a science, and scientists must be able to correct their hypotheses when wrong. The followers of those organizations would do no such thing.

Scientists become famous when they disprove their peer's theories. If real evidence against common ancestry was published, the researcher would win the Nobel prize. No theory is sacred in science, and evolution has survived this "trial of fire".

"Having a government official verify that it exists is not the same as releasing it and permitting us read and examine it. So no, he has not shown it to us."

lol. I guess the supreme court doesn't count for anything does it. Interesting. And after 20 seconds of searching, look what I found: http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/.shared/image.html?/photos/uncategorized/2008/06/13/bobirthcertificate.jpg.

Honestly, where did this crap originate? WorldNetDaily? Fox News? Jeez.

"Read the probabilities. Even taking a hundred billion galaxies times a hundred billion stars into account, the odds are still so small as to be well nigh impossible. Why do you think naturalistic cosmologists have felt the need to hypothesize a multiverse?"

I've read the probability arguments. And they're poor.

Creationist probability arguments fail because:
1) Arguments are based on the assumption that the first life forms formed by pure chance, and biochemistry is not governed by chance.
2) The arguments are usually focused only on protein molecules, ignoring others that may aid in promoting life.
3) Assumes the oldest life forms would be similar to its present form. The oldest life forms would be incredibly simple, and have almost none of the characteristics of modern cells.
4) The arguments ignore countless trials that would have been occurring simultaneously.

I have to say it would be refreshing to hear a creationist probability argument that actually takes account of the above.

As far as a multiverse, I don't buy it. Occam's Razor makes short work of that IMO.

"It is governed by orderly laws and described by precise mathematical values, without which life could not exist."

The laws of the universe are a description of what we observe, not a prescription. Quantum mechanics shows us that the universe is not at all as "orderly" as we once thought. The uncertainty principle and vacuum fluctuations are a few examples of this. And... life may be able to exist in a form that we are not familiar with.

"There is uncommon (improbable) sense to it, a lot of it. So...where did this "sense" - a synonym for orderly logic or arrangement, come from?"

"Sense"? You're kidding, right? Read my above paragraph.

"I encourage you to open your mind to the idea of the universe having been created by a transcendent metaphysical intelligence."

I am open to the idea. Thus, "agnostic" in my profile description. The god of the Bible hardly qualifies as "transcendent metaphysical intelligence"; human-like insecurities, atrocities, eternal punishment for finite crimes, the idea of original sin, blatant errors in a book supposedly written by him and the creation and sustaining of an "anti-god" or satan . If there is a "transcendent metaphysical intelligence", it probably doesn't care who we share a bed with, if we claim to follow a certain book, or whether we believe in it or not.

This was fun. I'll let you have the last word.

Enjoy your day.

[Athanasius]

"You realize this is classic argumentum ad populum, don't you?"

Absolutely.

I made no such argument. I was showing the statistics to counter your statement that a "significant minority" disagrees with what you define as "macro" evolution. No such "significant minority" exists.

While I freely acknowledge these numbers are indeed smaller than I expected, I did not say "a sizable minority," but rather "a significant minority." 5 percent is enough to make the average person pause to ask why so many would dare to dissent from the norm. Significance, I'm sure you will agree, is measured by more than the mere number of scientists adhering to a belief. Given the fact that the most recent Gallup polls also indicate that 45 percent of Americans believe in creationism, while only 13 percent believe in naturalistic evolution, I'd say that this five percent of scientists, especially those actively involved in creationist activities, has had a very significant effect.


And...there is no difference in the mechanics of "micro" and "macro" evolution. Macro is simply outside of the species barrier, micro is within. Please cite a credible scientific source that says otherwise. Hell, cite a credible scientific source that still even uses the terms.

Yes there is, in that one involves mere variations of existing structures, while the other involves the formation of novel structures. Even talkorigins.com defines macroevolution as I do:


Evolution on the grand scale resulting in the origin of higher taxa. In evolutionary theory it thus entails common ancestry, descent with modification, the genealogical relatedness of all life, transformation of species, large scale functional and structural changes, etc. (From http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/glossary.html)


Also, your barayim hypothesis is impossible. It is estimated that there are anywhere between 5-50 million species on Earth. To be fair, we'll say 15 million. It's laughable to say that a few "barayim" would produce that number in a few thousand years fresh from the Ark. Not to mention the millions of other species that have gone extinct. How many events of speciation would that involve per year? That's a little trick I call math.

First of all, we have observed speciation in modern times before our very eyes. Secondly, one has only to look at the remarkable variety of canines that can be produced by artificial selection in a very short period of time (consider the differences between a Chihuahua and a Great Dane), to get an idea of what might have been possible given the intense geographic, climatic and competiton selection pressures that would have existed following the Genesis flood. Thirdly, genetic information can be lost in in-breeding, isolated gene pools, so variability may have been much higher in the past than it is now. For instance, you are unlikely to get anything but a poodle when you breed two full-blooded poodles together,although there will be some minor variations. Some of this information can be recovered through hybridization of related species, and sometimes results in what is called "hybrid vitality".


"These may be explained by the affinity of retroviruses for certain "spots" in the genome rather than common ancestry. If an insertion happened in one species, it can happen in another."

Nope. Experiment after experiment shows absolutely no affinity for specific spots in the genome. Viruses are pretty damn random after all.

And... why is it that every time we look at species that are considered closely related, we see that they have the same ERV insertions? Chimps and humans, mice and rats. All confirmed by retroviral insertions. Even if your hypothesis is given the benefit of the doubt, and retroviruses have an affinity for certain spots in the genome, it would still be the same Retroviral DNA found, meaning that we should expect to see completely random combinations of different viruses and thus different ERV DNA in different species

Good point regarding the randomness. Still, since many ERV's have useful functions, even supposing there is complete randomness of insertion points in retroviruses, selection could isolate similar ERVs. And, there is also the possibility that retroviruses once had useful functions, but have degraded since the fall. See http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/arj/v2/n1/exogenization-vs-endogenization.


True science= Look at the evidence, draw the conclusion. Not, choose a conclusion, ignore evidence against it, and devise nutty hypothesis to protect it.

I agree. I am not an advocate of this kind of science (though that seems to be your implication). Both Naturalists and Creationists, unfortunately, have sometimes been guilty of this approach.


"As a result of new research, Darwin's tree of life has given way to something more like a "web of life," making the theory of descent from a common single-celled ancestor very messy."

Evolution by means of natural selection remains the backbone of modern biology, with decent from a common ancestor still the best explanation for the variety of life on Earth. It is independently confirmed by many different and unrelated sciences such as biochemistry, geology, paleontology, zoology etc.

Single celled organisms still appear in the Archaean period, dinosaurs in the Mesozoic and early hominids in the Cenozoic.

Funny that we don't find fossil squirrels in the Cambrian.

Of course, after the flood, we should expect to see rabbit fossils with Triceratops fossils, as they died next to each other. Or footprints next to each other. But we don't.

First of all, Creationists do not believe that all strata or fossils are flood related. Secondly, recent experiments have demonstrated that flood sediments sort according to size and density in water. Thirdly, in the initial stages of the flood, higher organisms would have migrated to higher areas, leaving the more primitive ones to be covered by sediment first. Fourthly, stratigraphic disoder (out of sequence fossils) is a fact of modern geology, and numerous hypotheses seek to explain them.



"Having a government official verify that it exists is not the same as releasing it and permitting us read and examine it. So no, he has not shown it to us."

lol. I guess the supreme court doesn't count for anything does it. Interesting. And after 20 seconds of searching, look what I found: http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/.shared/image.html?/photos/uncategorized/2008/06/13/bobirthcertificate.jpg.

This is not the long form but rather the short form. Obama has refused to release the long-form to the public.

"Read the probabilities. Even taking a hundred billion galaxies times a hundred billion stars into account, the odds are still so small as to be well nigh impossible. Why do you think naturalistic cosmologists have felt the need to hypothesize a multiverse?"


I've read the probability arguments. And they're poor.

Creationist probability arguments fail because:
1) Arguments are based on the assumption that the first life forms formed by pure chance, and biochemistry is not governed by chance.
2) The arguments are usually focused only on protein molecules, ignoring others that may aid in promoting life.
3) Assumes the oldest life forms would be similar to its present form. The oldest life forms would be incredibly simple, and have almost none of the characteristics of modern cells.
4) The arguments ignore countless trials that would have been occurring simultaneously.

I have to say it would be refreshing to hear a creationist probability argument that actually takes account of the above.


Many ot these values cannot yet be calculated, so creationists handle them by simply skewing the fractional factors in the favor of naturalism. Most of the probability arguments I have read imagine the simplest conceivable self-replicating cell, and give naturalism all of the benefit of the doubt - even to extent of imagining the universe packed with particles the size of an electron. And despite that, the odds are still astronomically small. I think some of these probability calculations are very good, and give naturalism every benefit of the doubt.


As far as a multiverse, I don't buy it. Occam's Razor makes short work of that IMO.


Good to know you are skeptical regarding this. But, that makes the universe very difficult to explain without a Creator.


"It is governed by orderly laws and described by precise mathematical values, without which life could not exist."

The laws of the universe are a description of what we observe, not a prescription. Quantum mechanics shows us that the universe is not at all as "orderly" as we once thought. The uncertainty principle and vacuum fluctuations are a few examples of this. And... life may be able to exist in a form that we are not familiar with.

"There is uncommon (improbable) sense to it, a lot of it. So...where did this "sense" - a synonym for orderly logic or arrangement, come from?"

"Sense"? You're kidding, right? Read my above paragraph.

"I encourage you to open your mind to the idea of the universe having been created by a transcendent metaphysical intelligence."

I am open to the idea. Thus, "agnostic" in my profile description. The god of the Bible hardly qualifies as "transcendent metaphysical intelligence"; human-like insecurities, atrocities, eternal punishment for finite crimes, the idea of original sin, blatant errors in a book supposedly written by him and the creation and sustaining of an "anti-god" or satan . If there is a "transcendent metaphysical intelligence", it probably doesn't care who we share a bed with, if we claim to follow a certain book, or whether we believe in it or not.

I encourage you to take another look at the God of the Bible. Many of modern man's objections to the God of the Bible arise from the following:

1. Not recognizing that He has the right, as Creator, to give life...and to take it in judgment of sin. He is not a man, but we want Him to apply the same principles that govern us to him. "If no man has the right to judge me, then by golly, God doesn't either!"
2. A desire to escape moral responsibility in order to indulge in things God forbids.
3. Fear of man, peer pressure, the desire to conform.
4. Blaming God for suffering and evil. Are the parents of a thief, who stole against their wishes, to blame for his crime, merely because they conceived him? If God wants creatures who freely choose to love Him, He must risk that they will choose not to. Suffering and evil are necessary consequences of creating creatures with free will. To borrow some phrases from chemistry, those who embrace God are the desired supernate, Satan and those who reject God of their own free will are the undesired but necessary precipitate.
5. We prefer to forget that suffering has a cleansing, cathartic effect on character. Some of the nicest people you will ever meet are those who have endured much suffering. Dare we tell them their lives were not worth living? Perhaps God has things in mind we do not realize.

But what wonderful things God has planned for those that love Him! This is not the best of all universes, but perhaps it is the only way to the best of all universes.

Lastly, no sin is finite in it's consequences in time, nor in the abomination it represents to a God of love and sinless purity.

I hope you enjoy your day also.

[Athanasius]

One of the posts above mentioned "a little trick" called math. Speaking of that very thing, in regard to the probability of abiogenesis, here's part of a post I made on T-Web years ago, but I think it is just as relevant as it was then. In it, I went to great pains to give abiogenesis all of the benefit of the doubt.


I first read something very similar to this about 15 years ago in Henry Morris’ book, “The Scientific Case for Creationism.” I thought that I would use a very similar methodology, combined with current estimates and some other observations, for this post.

The late information scientist Marcel J.E. Golay wrote in "Reflections of a Communications Engineer," in Analytical Chemistry, June 1961, p. 23: “Suppose we wanted to build a machine capable of reaching into bins for all its parts, and capable of assembling from these parts a second machine just like itself. What is the minimum amount of structure or information that should be built into the first machine? The answer comes out to be of the order of 1,500 bits - 1,500 choices between alternatives which the machine should be able to decide. This answer is very suggestive, because 1,500 bits happens to be also of the order of magnitude of the amount of structure contained in the simplest large protein molecule which, immersed in a bath of nutrients, can induce the assembly of those nutrients into another large protein molecule like itself, and then separate itself from it.”

Here, Golay was not describing 1500 random chemical events, as some creationists seem to have understood him. He was describing correct selections, which are not always synonymous with a single chemical event. In information theory, a bit represents a selection between two alternatives, and is the simplest unit of choice. It is also the simplest unit used to describe information. Golay is saying that a self-replicating machine must be able to make 1500 correct selections between equal alternatives to create a separate copy of itself. If we speak of the likelihood of a self-replicating molecular machine forming by a series of random chemical events, then the odds get much lower than ½ 1500, the figure Golay used to express the minimum information needed for this machine. Please allow me to illustrate why,

Ever play the game, "Twenty Questions"? In the game, you try to guess something another person is thinking of in 20 yes/no questions or less. The best strategy for winning the game is to ask a series of questions each with a 1/2 probability of being right (bits), such as, "Is the person male or female?" This involves the ability to intelligently evaluate equal alternatives and choose between them in order to correctly identify information.

But for a series of random chemical events to produce a self-replicating machine, there is no intelligent evaluation of equal alternatives going on. There is no intelligent choice going on either. The possible alternatives at each step in the sequence of events would typically be much higher than 2 as well, given the number of elements and mind-bogglingly high number of possible molecular combinations there are.

In the quote above, Golay only described a simple self assembling machine, such as a protein. He did not describe life, which is much more complex. For instance, Mycoplasma genitalium has the smallest known genome, with 580,000 base pairs. It is a pathogen, meaning that it needs other life to feed on, so it may be even simpler than the first cell was. One self-replicating protein is much, much simpler than that!

But still, let’s give abiogenesis a huge benefit of the doubt here, and say that only 1500 random events must occur, each with a probability of ½, to form any kind of self-replicating biological life. Note that this would not be the odds for one single combination, but rather the odds for any combination that might lead to life. Given this liberal assumption, the odds in any given sequence of random events would be ½ 1500, or 1/10.450. ( I read that biologist Frank B. Salisbury, in American Biology Teacher, concluded that the odds of the chance evolution of a medium-sized protein of 300 amino acids was about one in 10.600, an even smaller number, which, he said, is 'completely beyond our comprehension.'")

What is the likelihood of this having happened somewhere in the universe? The latest estimate of the number of stars in the observable universe is 70 sextillion stars. CNN reported that Dr. Simon Driver, when asked “if he believed the huge scale of the universe meant there was intelligent life out there somewhere, replied: ‘Seventy thousand million million million is a big number ... it's inevitable.’” [http://www.cnn.com/2003/TECH/space/07/22/stars.survey/] (http://www.cnn.com/2003/TECH/space/07/22/stars.survey/%5D)

Is this true? Since Driver noted that light from the visible universe has not reached us yet, and that the universe could actually be much larger, let’s increase this estimate to an amount greater than one trillion times what can currently be observed, to 10,000,000,000,000,000 sextillion, or 1037

Golay’s machine has all of the parts it needs to make a copy of itself right beside it. How often does that happen in nature? Let’s assume it happens a lot more often than it probably does, and suppose that each of these stars has 1,000,000 earth sized planets that are all giant nutrient baths, containing 1055 atoms (more than an amount 1,000,000 times the approximately 8.87 x 1049 atoms on earth). We will imagine nutrient baths, so that all of the needed parts for life will be on hand, near each atom, to be consistent with Golay’s analogy above.

Now let’s suppose that each of these atoms takes part in 1022 events per second. Multiply that by 1023 seconds of cosmic history (an amount higher than 100,000 times the current maximum estimated age of the universe, which is 6.3x1017 seconds), and you get 1037 x 1055 x 1022 x 1023 = 10137 possible chemical events that could have been tried out on these planets since the universe began.

Given these assumptions, the odds of a simple self-replicating system arising would therefore be 10137 /10450 = 1/10313 . Henry Morris, in his book, The Scientific Case for Creationism, used Golay’s figure and was even more liberal in one of his assumptions (his other figures, though lower, were still larger than current estimates). He imagined the entire known universe at that time was packed full of particles the size of electrons rather than atoms. And his odds still came out incredibly low, 1/10280 .

[The Pixie]

From the OP...

The truth is that Senator Pryor was right. While most scientists think that particle to species evolution (macroevolution) has happened, a significant minority do not...

The Discovery Institute (DI) has a list of signatories who reject evolution (see here (http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/filesDB-download.php?command=download&id=660)), while "Project Steve" has a list of signatories called Steve (or derivative) who accept evolution (see here (http://ncse.com/taking-action/project-steve)). There are around 800 on the DI list, while Project Steve has over 1100. Project Steve appears to have a rather higher proportion of biologists. They also claim that by resticting the list to Steves they are sampling 1% of the popoluation. All this amounts to rather less than 1% of biologists (i.e., experts at biology) rejecting evolution.

Personally, I would say that less than 1% is insignificant. Personally, I would say that when 99+% agree then Maher is right when he claims "I think they pretty much agree."



Within this simple question, there is a lot of communication and implication going on. Maher could have been more direct and asked something like, "You don't actually believe Jesus rose from the dead, do you?" but expressing disbelief in a talking snake is a much less sacred target, and less likely to offend. The intended effect of the question is the same, however, and that is to engender doubt.
It is an easy target. I mean, seriously, how much sense does the whole Garden of Eden thing make? Plenty of Christians reject a literal interpretation too.


Isn't it downright conceited and arrogant of metaphysical naturalists to imply that their view is the only one that could possibly be true?
I think that that is an accusation better levelled at the Christians. Science is tentative, and on-going. New ideas are presented all the time, old ideas rejected.

It is the Christians who tend to believe their view is the only one that could possibly be true. Does that make them conceited and arrogant?

Now I wonder, how many times did Senator Pryor get asked about talking snakes in town hall meetings when he was running for office?
I bet he kept quiet about his screwball beliefs...

Could not these things, along with the serpent, have been actual historic objects and events, planned and intended by God to import symbolism and deep meaning?
Are you really comfortable with the idea that God planned the Fall?

As we read the Bible, our suspicion is confirmed. And lest there be any doubt, the very last book of the Bible makes the identity of that sinister intelligence very clear:

And the great dragon was cast out, that old serpent, called the Devil, and Satan, which deceiveth the whole world: he was cast out into the earth, and his angels were cast out with him. - Revelation 12:9
Why did God curse all snakes, if it was really Satan in the driving seat? Oh, no, wait, This was all "planned and intended by God", it was God in the driving seat.

[The Pixie]

Athanasius

Am I correct in thinking you are the author of the OP?

Most creationists believe it does occur within created kinds, which we call barayim. How else do you think the limited number of barayim on the ark could have given us the rich variety of species we have today? But despite speciation, a canine is still a canine and a feline is still a feline. There has been no macro-evolution from one barayim to another. If you want to refute us, then it would be good to take aim at what we really believe, not a straw man.
Canines will always be canines because they all fall in the same clade, that is they all descend from the same common ancestor. If new species arise, they will still be canines because they will still have that common ancestor. In exactly the same way, they will still be mammals. Mammals is another clade comprising all animals that have a common ancestor rather longer ago. And yet there are numerous species of mammal.

There are varying estimates for the numbers of animals on the Ark, but one such is 16,000 (from here (http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2004/0324ark.asp)). To get to an estimated 145,400 species of mammals, birds, reptiles and amphibians, you require a process of (I assume) hypermutation, with new species appearing at the rate of nearly 29 new species appearing each year. I find it ironic that creationists have to assume such high rates of evolution.

Something that puzzles me about "kinds" or barayim is how do you decide what counts as a kind. Is it cat, or is it felinae, or is it felid (see here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Felidae) for the differences)? If creationist was right, we should see some clear disconnect. In reality, there is no such gap, and this is why baraminology is so problematic - if the disconnect was there, baraminologists would have an easy time assigning each species to a "kind".

Secondly, recent experiments have demonstrated that flood sediments sort according to size and density in water.
Could you expand on this? Are you suggesting that the fossil record is sorted (within the flood stata) by size and density, so all the big heavy creatures are at the bottom, with the small, light ones on the top?

Another question that comes to mind is how radio-isotopes got sorted by the flood. Why is it that the more depleted samples of a certain isotope get sorted to the bottom, with the less depleted ones at the top. For all the different isotopes. Old Earth explains this very well, of course. The low stata are millions to billions of years old, so the radio-isotope has been deleted over long time. This cannot be the case is a flood scenario, where the stata are laid down over just one year. I would also wonder why stable isotopes were not sorted by the flood.

Thirdly, in the initial stages of the flood, higher organisms would have migrated to higher areas, leaving the more primitive ones to be covered by sediment first.
So I guess all the trees would be at the bottom of the layer, right? Then the really slow animals, like sloths and snails. Right at the top, we see the fast ones, like velocaraptor.

Fourthly, stratigraphic disoder (out of sequence fossils) is a fact of modern geology, and numerous hypotheses seek to explain them.
About what percentage of fossils are found out of the order predicted by an old Earth scanerio? How does that compare with your density, size and speed sorting hypothesis?

[The Pixie]

The late information scientist Marcel J.E. Golay wrote in "Reflections of a Communications Engineer," in Analytical Chemistry, June 1961, p. 23: “Suppose we wanted to build a machine capable of reaching into bins for all its parts, and capable of assembling from these parts a second machine just like itself. What is the minimum amount of structure or information that should be built into the first machine? The answer comes out to be of the order of 1,500 bits - 1,500 choices between alternatives which the machine should be able to decide. This answer is very suggestive, because 1,500 bits happens to be also of the order of magnitude of the amount of structure contained in the simplest large protein molecule which, immersed in a bath of nutrients, can induce the assembly of those nutrients into another large protein molecule like itself, and then separate itself from it.”
...
Given these assumptions, the odds of a simple self-replicating system arising would therefore be 10137 /10450 = 1/10313 . Henry Morris, in his book, The Scientific Case for Creationism, used Golay’s figure and was even more liberal in one of his assumptions (his other figures, though lower, were still larger than current estimates). He imagined the entire known universe at that time was packed full of particles the size of electrons rather than atoms. And his odds still came out incredibly low, 1/10280.
What are you (or Golay) claiming is the "simplest large protein molecule which, immersed in a bath of nutrients, can induce the assembly of those nutrients into another large protein molecule like itself, and then separate itself from it"? How did Golay calculate the "amount of structure" in it?

Here is an alternative approach. According to an article in Nature by Kaufman (see below), a 32 amino acid sequence will self-replicate. If we assume this has to form randomly from a soup of 20 amino acids, then the probability of a particular sequence would by 32^20, or about 2^128. That is rather less than your figure of 2^1500. That would make abiogenesis more likely by a factor of 2^1372. Using your calculation, we can thus expect abiogenesis to occur on 1/10^313 x 2 ^1372 = 2^433 or 10^144 planets (assuming the rest of your calculations are reasonable).

http://www.asa3.org/archive/evolution/199705/0014.html

The authors show that a 32-amino-acid peptide, folded into an alpha-helix and having a structure based on a region of the yeast transcription factor GCN4, can autocatalyse its own synthesis by accelerating the amino-bond condensation of 15- and 17-amino-acid fragments in solution

[Athanasius]

What are you (or Golay) claiming is the "simplest large protein molecule which, immersed in a bath of nutrients, can induce the assembly of those nutrients into another large protein molecule like itself, and then separate itself from it"? How did Golay calculate the "amount of structure" in it?

Here is an alternative approach. According to an article in Nature by Kaufman (see below), a 32 amino acid sequence will self-replicate. If we assume this has to form randomly from a soup of 20 amino acids, then the probability of a particular sequence would by 32^20, or about 2^128. That is rather less than your figure of 2^1500. That would make abiogenesis more likely by a factor of 2^1372. Using your calculation, we can thus expect abiogenesis to occur on 1/10^313 x 2 ^1372 = 2^433 or 10^144 planets (assuming the rest of your calculations are reasonable).

http://www.asa3.org/archive/evolution/199705/0014.html

In a primordial soup, the choices would not be between 20 amino acids alone. In the experiment you refer to, the replication took place in a water solution of 15 and 17 unit peptide fragments. In other words, the replicators were already half-assembled and the environment and choices were controlled and limited! So this is not likely a replicator that could survive in a primordial soup where the possible number of reactants would be huge, and pre-assembled 15 and 17 unit peptide fragments of the correct sequence would probably not be readily available.

Golay reduced choices down to the level of the bit, the smallest unit of information. If you will read the following response by Sarfarti to the article you refer to, it becomes evident that there is much more information in these 15 and 17 unit amino acid sequences than first meets the eye.


Self-replicating Peptides?
Amino acids can be formed (with difficulty12) in Miller-type experiments where reducing gases are sparked, unlike ribose and the nitrogenous bases. Thus some evolutionists are investigating protein-first rather than nucleic-acid-first theories of the origin of life. But proteins do not have anything analogous to the base-pairing in nucleic acids. So there was a surprise in August 1996, when some newspapers and science journals reported a peptide that can reproduce itself. David Lee et al. reported that a short peptide derived from part of a yeast enzyme can catalyse its own formation.13

Lee et al. made a 32-unit-long a-helical peptide based on the leucine-zipper domain of the yeast transcription factor GCN4. They found that it catalysed its own synthesis in a neutral, dilute water solution of 15 and 17-unit fragments. This was an ingenious experiment, but it does not help the evolutionary cause because:

1.Where would the first 32-unit long chain of 100 % left-handed amino acid residues come from? Amino acids are not formed as easily as Lee et al. claim. If they form at all, they are extremely dilute and impure, as well as racemic (50–50 mix of left and right-handed forms). Such amino acids do not spontaneously polymerise in water.
2.Where would a supply of the matching 15 and 17-unit chains come from? Not only does the objection above apply, but what mechanism is supposed to produce the right sequences? Even if we had a mixture of the right homochiral (all the same handedness) amino acids, the chance of getting one 15-unit peptide right is one in 2015 (= one in 3 x 1019). If it is not necessary to get the sequences exactly right, then it would mean that the ‘replication’ is not specific, and would thus allow many errors.
3.The 15 and 17-unit peptides must be activated, because condensation of ordinary amino acids is not spontaneous in water. Lee et al. used a thiobenzyl ester derivative of one peptide. As they say, this also circumvents potential side reactions. The hypothetical primordial soup would not have had intelligent chemists adding the right chemicals to prevent wrong reactions!
4.The particular 32-unit chain was an a-helix, where hydrogen bonds between different amino acid residues cause the chain to helicize. This common structure is more likely to be able to act as a template under artificial conditions. Lee et al. claim that b-sheets, which also depend on hydrogen bonding, might also be able to act as templates. This seems plausible. a-helices and b-sheets are known as the secondary structure of the protein.14
The exact way in which the protein folds is called the tertiary structure, and this determines its specific properties. Although Lee et al. say:
we suggest the possibility of protein self-replication in which the catalytic activity of the protein could be conserved,
they present no experimental proof.

http://creation.com/self-replicating-enzymes



Lastly, of course you know the assumptions I worked from were not realistic at all (with the universe one trillion times larger than it is thought to be, and 1,000,000 planets of primordial soup surrounding each sun!), but intended to demonstrate that abiogenesis is improbable even when the conditions are ridiculously more favorable than they actually are. :smile:

[The Pixie]

Athanasius

In a primordial soup, the choices would not be between 20 amino acids alone. In the experiment you refer to, the replication took place in a water solution of 15 and 17 unit peptide fragments. In other words, the replicators were already half-assembled and the environment and choices were controlled and limited! So this is not likely a replicator that could survive in a primordial soup where the possible number of reactants would be huge, and pre-assembled 15 and 17 unit peptide fragments of the correct sequence would probably not be readily available.
You make some fair points here. However, for all we know there are other self-replicating proteins of comparable length that do not have this restriction.
Unfortunately, you have given no indication of how Golay made his calculation, so it is impossible for me to evaluate how reasonable his figure is. The reality is that we do not know, however, I believe the work by Lee shows that Golay is a long, long way out.

If you will read the following response by Sarfarti to the article you refer to, it becomes evident that there is much more information in these 15 and 17 unit amino acid sequences than first meets the eye.
There are numerous ways to determine information content. Could you walk us though the calculation for say the 15 unit sequence?

Lastly, of course you know the assumptions I worked from were not realistic at all (with the universe one trillion times larger than it is thought to be, and 1,000,000 planets of primordial soup surrounding each sun!)...
Well whose fault is that?

Okay, so we reduce the final figure by 10^18 (one trillion by 1,000,000). Hey, I will be generous, let us suppose life is a trillion tim,es less likely than I first thought, that leaves still leaves an expected 10^108 planets with life.

[Athanasius]

Athanasius

Am I correct in thinking you are the author of the OP?

Yes.



Canines will always be canines because they all fall in the same clade, that is they all descend from the same common ancestor. If new species arise, they will still be canines because they will still have that common ancestor. In exactly the same way, they will still be mammals. Mammals is another clade comprising all animals that have a common ancestor rather longer ago. And yet there are numerous species of mammal....Something that puzzles me about "kinds" or barayim is how do you decide what counts as a kind. Is it cat, or is it felinae, or is it felid (see here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Felidae) for the differences)? If creationist was right, we should see some clear disconnect. In reality, there is no such gap, and this is why baraminology is so problematic - if the disconnect was there, baraminologists would have an easy time assigning each species to a "kind".

We don't equate barayim to the species level, if that is what you mean, but roughly speaking, to the family level. This does not preclude the idea of multiple species having been originally created within the same family, however.


There are varying estimates for the numbers of animals on the Ark, but one such is 16,000 (from here (http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2004/0324ark.asp)). To get to an estimated 145,400 species of mammals, birds, reptiles and amphibians, you require a process of (I assume) hypermutation, with new species appearing at the rate of nearly 29 new species appearing each year. I find it ironic that creationists have to assume such high rates of evolution.

No, not at all. Your numbers reflect the aggregate number of new species for all the populations combined. When we look at each individually, on average only 9 new species have descended from each species on the ark from the time they left the ark to the present day. That's one new species every 484 years.



Could you expand on this? Are you suggesting that the fossil record is sorted (within the flood stata) by size and density, so all the big heavy creatures are at the bottom, with the small, light ones on the top?

Another question that comes to mind is how radio-isotopes got sorted by the flood. Why is it that the more depleted samples of a certain isotope get sorted to the bottom, with the less depleted ones at the top. For all the different isotopes. Old Earth explains this very well, of course. The low stata are millions to billions of years old, so the radio-isotope has been deleted over long time. This cannot be the case is a flood scenario, where the stata are laid down over just one year. I would also wonder why stable isotopes were not sorted by the flood.

So I guess all the trees would be at the bottom of the layer, right? Then the really slow animals, like sloths and snails. Right at the top, we see the fast ones, like velocaraptor.

About what percentage of fossils are found out of the order predicted by an old Earth scanerio? How does that compare with your density, size and speed sorting hypothesis?

I'm not a biblical geologist, but I have read enough and contemplated enough to answer some of your questions. We do not at all attribute all strata or fossils to Noah's flood. The Biblical geologic chronology is very complex. Fist we have the chaotic state prior to the formation of the earth. Then we have sediments that resulted from the rising of the dry land in one day during creation week. This would result in tremendous non-fossil bearing sedimentation. Next we have the post edenic, pre-diluvian period, with fossils laid down at a uniform rate. Many species may have become extinct prior to the flood, not been chosen as a representative species of their barayim, or may have become extinct shortly after the flood. Then we have the early flood stages, with migration of many species to higher ground, breaking of natural dams, etc. Then we have catastrophic plate tectonics, with possiblly entire crustal plates sinking and rising and tremendous volcanic activity. Then there is sorting during the process of sedimentation, and the rather uniform post flood period puntuated by many local geologic events such as flooding, the ice age, glacial movements and melting, river delta sedimentation, etc. You asked specifically about trees. This is also not so simple, with floating quake-bog like forests being destroyed in the flood, and the behavior of trees and broken trunks in flood water. Creation geology is a fascinating and complex field.

[The Pixie]

Athanasius

We don't equate barayim to the species level, if that is what you mean, but roughly speaking, to the family level. This does not preclude the idea of multiple species having been originally created within the same family, however.
Do you (creationists) consistently do that? I suspect that you keep humans out of the great ape family, for example. Do you think the numerous families of beetles are all different barayims (is that the plural)?

If creationism was correct, it would be easy to determine barayim. There would be as much connection between ladybirds and scarab beetles as there was between people and daffodils. Okay, I accept that to have the same basdic shape, there would be many similarieties, but at the molecular level, for example in the non-coding DNA, we would expect the variation to show no connection. Many proteins can vary someout in their amino acid sequence without affecting their functionality. In a creationist scenario, we would expect them to either by the same for all species, or be random for all species. On the other hand, for common descent, we would expect there to be much more variation between species that were distantly related. The classic protein for this is cytochrome-c, which is present in funghi and animals (and I think plants and bacteria). Closely related animals, like chimp and man, have identical sequences, distantly related, like man and yeast have sequences that vary by something like 40% (by the way, experiments have shown that cytochrome-c from different species work perfectly well when swapped around).

Pix: There are varying estimates for the numbers of animals on the Ark, but one such is 16,000 (from here). To get to an estimated 145,400 species of mammals, birds, reptiles and amphibians, you require a process of (I assume) hypermutation, with new species appearing at the rate of nearly 29 new species appearing each year. I find it ironic that creationists have to assume such high rates of evolution.

Ath: No, not at all. Your numbers reflect the aggregate number of new species for all the populations combined. When we look at each individually, on average only 9 new species have descended from each species on the ark from the time they left the ark to the present day. That's one new species every 484 years.
Actually that would be 17, as there were only 8,000 species (and two of each) on the ark, so that is one new species every 262 years (assuming 4500 since flood) for each of the original. Which means a new species of some kind appearing every 0.03 years, or 1.7 weeks (i.e., 29 times a years).

We are both right about the maths. I think the total number of new species appearing each year is the interesting figure. You think that the rate at which new species evolve from the original is more important. Which every way you look at it, neither reflects what is observed. Species events are actually very rate, especially among vertebrates.

I'm not a biblical geologist, but I have read enough and contemplated enough to answer some of your questions. We do not at all attribute all strata or fossils to Noah's flood.
Okay. Can you state which layers were laid down by the flood and which were not? You might like to reference the old Earth model described here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geologic_time_scale).

The Biblical geologic chronology is very complex. Fist we have the chaotic state prior to the formation of the earth. Then we have sediments that resulted from the rising of the dry land in one day during creation week. This would result in tremendous non-fossil bearing sedimentation. Next we have the post edenic, pre-diluvian period, with fossils laid down at a uniform rate. Many species may have become extinct prior to the flood, not been chosen as a representative species of their barayim, or may have become extinct shortly after the flood. Then we have the early flood stages, with migration of many species to higher ground, breaking of natural dams, etc. Then we have catastrophic plate tectonics, with possiblly entire crustal plates sinking and rising and tremendous volcanic activity. Then there is sorting during the process of sedimentation, and the rather uniform post flood period puntuated by many local geologic events such as flooding, the ice age, glacial movements and melting, river delta sedimentation, etc. You asked specifically about trees. This is also not so simple, with floating quake-bog like forests being destroyed in the flood, and the behavior of trees and broken trunks in flood water. Creation geology is a fascinating and complex field.
So which strata correspond to which event? Presumably flood geologists have got that far, as the events you describe would produce very different layers. The catastrophic plate tectonics would leave very clear evidence, with whole sections of strata miles(?) deep missing in places where the plates had vacated. The sedimentation process would give a continuous layer of rock that gradually varied from course-particle-based at the bottom to fine-particle at the top. Can you identify this layer in the geological column? Should be dead easy, if there is only the "rather uniform post flood" layer on top of that.

What theories have been proposed for the sorting of radioisotopes?

[Athanasius]

Athanasius

Do you (creationists) consistently do that? I suspect that you keep humans out of the great ape family, for example. Do you think the numerous families of beetles are all different barayims (is that the plural)?

If creationism was correct, it would be easy to determine barayim. There would be as much connection between ladybirds and scarab beetles as there was between people and daffodils. Okay, I accept that to have the same basdic shape, there would be many similarieties, but at the molecular level, for example in the non-coding DNA, we would expect the variation to show no connection. Many proteins can vary someout in their amino acid sequence without affecting their functionality. In a creationist scenario, we would expect them to either by the same for all species, or be random for all species. On the other hand, for common descent, we would expect there to be much more variation between species that were distantly related. The classic protein for this is cytochrome-c, which is present in funghi and animals (and I think plants and bacteria). Closely related animals, like chimp and man, have identical sequences, distantly related, like man and yeast have sequences that vary by something like 40% (by the way, experiments have shown that cytochrome-c from different species work perfectly well when swapped around).

Actually that would be 17, as there were only 8,000 species (and two of each) on the ark, so that is one new species every 262 years (assuming 4500 since flood) for each of the original. Which means a new species of some kind appearing every 0.03 years, or 1.7 weeks (i.e., 29 times a years).

We are both right about the maths. I think the total number of new species appearing each year is the interesting figure. You think that the rate at which new species evolve from the original is more important. Which every way you look at it, neither reflects what is observed. Species events are actually very rate, especially among vertebrates.

Okay. Can you state which layers were laid down by the flood and which were not? You might like to reference the old Earth model described here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geologic_time_scale).

So which strata correspond to which event? Presumably flood geologists have got that far, as the events you describe would produce very different layers. The catastrophic plate tectonics would leave very clear evidence, with whole sections of strata miles(?) deep missing in places where the plates had vacated. The sedimentation process would give a continuous layer of rock that gradually varied from course-particle-based at the bottom to fine-particle at the top. Can you identify this layer in the geological column? Should be dead easy, if there is only the "rather uniform post flood" layer on top of that.

What theories have been proposed for the sorting of radioisotopes?

I suspect we could go on with this for a very long time, with your rather tenacious skepticism driving you to challenge me on nearly everything I say, from the general to the specific.

Of course, faith or disbelief in God is not simply a matter of accepting or rejecting evidence pointing to God's existence, a little of which I have endeavored to present. It is also often a matter of subjective interpretation of the evidence based upon our underlying motives and consequent presuppositions.

The gospels record that many of those who saw Jesus's miracles with their very own eyes still did not believe. No amount of evidence can convince a man of something he is determined not to believe. I am not saying this is the case with you - I hope it is not.

But even more critical than accepting the testimony of God's handiwork, is the matter of God making Himself known to each man individually. This is one reason why the Bible teaches that faith is not of ourselves - it is a gift freely offered by God to all who will accept it. If God is independent of the universe but it dependent upon Him, then God must reveal himself to man to be known by Him.

Although I have enjoyed the dialogue, and I think I have been able to answer most of your challenges, despite being only a well-read science layman, I simply don't have the time on my hands to reply to all of your skeptical questions. But if I have whetted your appetite to learn more about young earth creation science, let me encourage you to read some of the many books which have been written or the two creation science journals. There you will discover the current state of the science and answers to many of the questions you have asked readily available.

Try reading the Bible again from a fresh perspective, giving it a chance, and with an attitude of being willing to believe it if, despite the contrary opinions of those who oppose it, it rings true.

The man who was born blind but healed professed his faith in Jesus, even though it got him cast out of the synagogue. Now as then, faith in the Son of God comes at a price. Not many are willing to pay it. "Buy the truth, and sell it not," the proverb goes. But too many are either unwilling to pay the price, or willing to sell it, even at the cost of their eternal destiny. Don't get hung up on the foolishness of money-grubbing televangelists or the like. They have their reward in this life, and the truth will testify against them. Weigh Him on his own merits, not on things falsely done in His name. He can stand the test.

[The Pixie]

Athanasius

I suspect we could go on with this for a very long time, with your rather tenacious skepticism driving you to challenge me on nearly everything I say, from the general to the specific.
When you make contenious claims around here you can expect to be challenged on them. I guess the nature of an editorial is that your are looking at a broader view, and so will touch on a much wider ranger of issues.

Of course, faith or disbelief in God is not simply a matter of accepting or rejecting evidence pointing to God's existence, a little of which I have endeavored to present. It is also often a matter of subjective interpretation of the evidence based upon our underlying motives and consequent presuppositions.
To a degree yes, but not entirely. I came to the issue open-mindedly originally, though there must have been some background pre-conceptions I accept.

It is my belief that scientists tend to approach these questions with more of an open mind than creationists. Creationists start from the Bible, and go on from there, rejecting or re-interpreting anything that does not fit their own interpreation of the Bible. Scientists are rather more likely to follow the evidence, to overturn the established ideas (Darwin and Einstein are excellent examples of that). It is worth remembering that scientists have a wide range of presuppositions, coming from numerous faiths, as well as agnostics and atheists.

But even more critical than accepting the testimony of God's handiwork, is the matter of God making Himself known to each man individually. This is one reason why the Bible teaches that faith is not of ourselves - it is a gift freely offered by God to all who will accept it. If God is independent of the universe but it dependent upon Him, then God must reveal himself to man to be known by Him.
As the story of Doubting Thomas shows, some people need more evidence than others. I guess I am more like Thomas.

[Athanasius]

It is my belief that scientists tend to approach these questions with more of an open mind than creationists. Creationists start from the Bible, and go on from there, rejecting or re-interpreting anything that does not fit their own interpreation of the Bible. Scientists are rather more likely to follow the evidence, to overturn the established ideas (Darwin and Einstein are excellent examples of that). It is worth remembering that scientists have a wide range of presuppositions, coming from numerous faiths, as well as agnostics and atheists.
.

Theistic science, it is true, adopts the presupposition that there is a Creator as an underlying philosophy of science. Just as there are also those who adopt metaphysical naturalism as an approach to science, we ought to be free to adopt the philosophy of science we choose.

Unfortunately the predominant philosophy of science, methodological naturalism, prohibits theistic explanations in science. I think it inhibits many scientists from being as open as they might otherwise be to the idea of a Creator and stifles free inquiry into anything but naturalistic explanations in science. Agnostic science is the most open minded philosophy when it comes to origins, and I think the only possible government-sponsored approach that truly meets constitutional requirements. For a fuller discussion by me of this intriguing subject, see http://www.creationdefense.org/117.htm.


As the story of Doubting Thomas shows, some people need more evidence than others. I guess I am more like Thomas.

Then here's praying that like Thomas, you get all the evidence you need. Best wishes to you.

[will33har]

Also, your barayim hypothesis is impossible. It is estimated that there are anywhere between 5-50 million species on Earth. To be fair, we'll say 15 million. It's laughable to say that a few "barayim" would produce that number in a few thousand years fresh from the Ark. Not to mention the millions of other species that have gone extinct. How many events of speciation would that involve per year?

That's a little trick I call math.



I like that Athanasius used the dog barayim to illustrate this point, it provided the opportunity for more than just a coincidental happening that I came across this information just this morning. http://www.trussel.com/prehist/news24.htm 'Secular (i.e. non-creationist) scientist discovers that Domestic dogs descended from wolves and researchers confirm it.' What does that mean, well it means that only 2 wolves needed to be on Noah's Ark in order to produce all the varying species of dog that exist today, from dingoes and jackals to poodles and pugs.

I call that quality over quantity.

[cameronversluis]

I like this article. It puts things into perspective.

I would like to note that it is possible for "serpent" in Genesis 1 to be translated as "shining one". "Serpent" can also be an metaphor for Satan. So it doesn't necessarily need to be a literal serpent.

However, I have no problem with it being a literal serpent.

[whitedove]

This is a great topic! So much to ponder and consider. The idea of a talking snake has become increasingly popular in our society. Off the top of my head, I think of the Harry Potter books/films. Interestingly, only certain people in the story can communicate (i.e. hear and understand snakes and speak back to them), and those people who can communicate with snakes are quickly classified as "evil." Yet our faithful protagonist, Harry Potter, can communicate with snakes, and he is clearly not evil like other parseltongues (which is Harry Potter lingo for those with the ability to communicate with snakes; and which is also an incredibly rare gift amongst wizards) such as the menacing, forever-evil Lord Voldemort (also known as "The Dark Lord," "He-Who-Must-Not-Be-Named," and "You-Know-Who"). Therefore, what questions about the nature of parseltongues does Harry's ability arise? Are all parseltongues evil? Not necessarily because, as previously stated, our faithful protagonist is one. Does it suggest that anyone, regardless of "good" or "evil" can communicate with snakes? Absolutely. Does it also suggest that few people can communicate with snakes? Absolutely.

To answer the question in short, I'd say yes because people can in the magical world of Harry Potter.

[Neatochick]

This is a great topic! So much to ponder and consider. The idea of a talking snake has become increasingly popular in our society. Off the top of my head, I think of the Harry Potter books/films. Interestingly, only certain people in the story can communicate (i.e. hear and understand snakes and speak back to them), and those people who can communicate with snakes are quickly classified as "evil." Yet our faithful protagonist, Harry Potter, can communicate with snakes, and he is clearly not evil like other parseltongues (which is Harry Potter lingo for those with the ability to communicate with snakes; and which is also an incredibly rare gift amongst wizards) such as the menacing, forever-evil Lord Voldemort (also known as "The Dark Lord," "He-Who-Must-Not-Be-Named," and "You-Know-Who"). Therefore, what questions about the nature of parseltongues does Harry's ability arise? Are all parseltongues evil? Not necessarily because, as previously stated, our faithful protagonist is one. Does it suggest that anyone, regardless of "good" or "evil" can communicate with snakes? Absolutely. Does it also suggest that few people can communicate with snakes? Absolutely.

To answer the question in short, I'd say yes because people can in the magical world of Harry Potter.


Greetings Whitedove!
I am also new to this site as I see you are and I've enjoyed exploring some of the many fascinating topics started!
I noticed you took a more of a "worldly and secular" opinion on the existence of talking snakes. I wonder why you did not explore the effects of snakes on our children. I remember one day while hiking in the woods Todd ran faster than I had ever seen him run when a snake slithered right by his foot. The irony in this being only earlier that day did we play "Snakes and Ladders", one of his absolute favorite board games. Something to think about right? Why do snakes have such a bad rap? Since Biblical times when satan tempted Eve AS a snake.

[whitedove]

Thanks for the well wishes, Neatochick! Such a lovely forum with a vast array of topics to explore. You noted that I did not discuss the effects of snakes on our children. If you are familiar with the Harry Potter series, you will note that it is Harry's ability (who is approximately 12 years old) to communicate with snakes is what alerts the rest of the school to the impending danger lurking in the chamber of secrets. If Harry could not communicate with snakes, then he could not have saved Ginny Weasley (a girl of 11 years) from the evil Tom Riddle (also known as Lord Voldemort). In this case, it is the child's (Harry's) ability to talk with snakes that allows for him to triumph over evil.

[Tassman]

A "significant minority of scientists do not agree with Darwinian Evolution"??? Really! Are there any who are not from the Discovery Institute? The Discovery Institute has a theological agenda and cannot be taken seriously as unbiased science. And on what basis would one accept Genesis as an authority on the origins of mankind? It is hardly science...well, Bronze Age science, perhaps. This little piece is disgracefully biased propaganda. It is shamefully dishonest.

[Agnostotheist]

Hello.

I'm brand new to this forum. I found the above article interesting, and thought that it required a response from an alternative theistic perspective, in particular with regards to the author's treatment of the so-called "Fall Narrative" from Genesis 3. First and foremost, let it be known that biblical studies is my vocational field, and that because of this, I will necessarily approach Scripture from a primarily naturalistic perspective. Also, this means that my first—but not necessarily primary—motive is to uncover as clearly as possible authorial intent and the historical process of interpretation for any given tradition from Scripture. The story from Genesis 3 is no exception; interestingly enough, because of the said "historical process of interpretation" I consider it one of the most poorly understood sections of the entire Hebrew Bible.

First of all, the author, Rusty Entrekin, posits a plausible reconciliation of the mythical elements from the passage with actual events in what he calls "Orchestrated Symbolism" whereby:


"God knew that man would eventually sin in one way or the other. Knowing this, could He not have intentionally planned the circumstances, and the striking symbolism, of that tragic event?"

I will concede that this is possible however, I also feel that it is highly unlikely. In order to demonstrate the presence of such intentional symbolism, it would seem to me that Mr. Entrekin must also demonstrate a clear, historical understanding of these symbols to correspond with the much later Christian interpretation of them. I would expect that were the symbols grounded in an actual, historical event, there would be—at the very least—an ongoing discussion throughout the ancient world regarding them and their meaning. Unfortunately, this is simply not the case, as the story in Genesis 3 appears to be quite unique in the Hebrew Bible—to make no mention of any parallels in the Ancient Near East. So much so, in fact, that there is virtually no comment or allusion made to this episode in any other place in the Hebrew Bible. From the perspective of an historical critic, a fairly reasonable conclusion to draw is that this bit of biblical lore is actually fairly late. Given that "Adam and Eve" are not spoken about in Jewish literature until the early third century B.C.E., it would seem that this agrarian tale was likely not widely known prior to then. If it was, then it certainly was not of much importance; at least not nearly as significant as the narratives of Moses, Joshua and the Judges, nor the Davidic legends. On the contrary, I would argue that the late appearance and the fairly unique features of this Hebrew legend from Genesis 3 suggests that the "symbolism" functions no differently than from any other contemporary etymological tale. That is to say they are not so "symbolic" as we would understand them to be. Rather, the people who told these stories saw them as real representations of what they perceived to be real life. In Genesis 3, the "Tree of Life" is simply representative of immortality. The "Tree of Knowledge" is a somewhat peculiar representation of an ancient peoples' suspicions of "knowledge" (This is probably akin to the early association between reading and writing with magic and mysticism). The snake is just a snake, albeit one that apparently can talk.

The rest of the postulations made in this article regarding the passage itself have much less to do with what Genesis 3 actually says and what it meant, and much more to do with grand speculation and harmonization of later ideas to an earlier legend. This is most painfully evident in Mr. Entrekin's discussion of the snake from the story:


"sly and cunning men aside, reports of talking snakes seem to be quite rare. And the obvious intelligence of the writer of Genesis compels us to believe that he recognized that snakes, though crafty, do not, under normal circumstances, speak. And so we quite reasonably suspect that the writer of Genesis intended us to infer a sinister intelligence and power behind the serpent."

I am prompted upon reading this to right away wonder why we should "quite reasonably" suspect as much? There is virtually no indication FROM THE TEXT ITSELF that there is a supernatural power lurking behind the snake. In fact, the very responses of the characters involved in the story to the snake would suggest as much: as if the talking snake were a fairly common creature in this mythical garden of delights. Entrekin makes this suggestion based on two (rather unfounded) presuppositions: First, that the writer (or writers) of Genesis is "obviously intelligent". Granted, I would concede as much simply based on his ability to write, but I suspect that my perception of an ancient "intelligence" is much different than Mr. Entrekin's, and this is evident from the second presupposition, that people's experience and perception of the world and of reality in the ancient world was EXACTLY THE SAME as it is among people of the modern, Western world. In other words, the author of Genesis must have had in view a demonic intelligence, because—thinking as any MODERN, rational person does—snakes CANNOT speak on their own. Because it is (rightly) incredulous for Mr. Entrekin to imagine that a snake could speak on his own, he presumes the same level of incredulity for the writer of Genesis, and thus leaps to the conclusion that other forces were at work.

Furthermore, such a view also presupposes the author's intent in writing down the story itself. Whoever eventually wrote down the Book of Genesis from a variety of other source material did not appear to have any other intent but to organize the various stories of Israel's primeval history into an orderly and chronological account. Had the author really been concerned to convey the "sinister intelligence" of which Entrekin is so confident, then one must wonder why he was not more explicit in his presentation of this other-worldly being pulling the snake's strings. Instead, he has merely recorded the tale likely as it was told, and without much careful scrutiny. Quite simply, there is no indication of this from the text, thus, from the perspective of the text, such a presumption should be rejected out of hand.

[Agnostotheist]

(Continued...)

Having established the initial problem with assuming a "sinister intelligence"—or what Entrekin equates with a demonic presence—behind the talking snake from Genesis 3, the next several paragraphs are dispensed with some ease:


"As we read the Bible, our suspicion is confirmed. And lest there be any doubt, the very last book of the Bible makes the identity of that sinister intelligence very clear:

And the great dragon was cast out, that old serpent, called the Devil, and Satan, which deceiveth the whole world: he was cast out into the earth, and his angels were cast out with him. - Revelation 12:9

It may be the case that the early Christians made the association between a Greco-Roman concept of the "Devil" and the talking snake from Genesis 3, but this is hardly a self evident feature of the text from Genesis. "Our suspicion" of this connection is only there in the first place because of the highly allusive—but imprecise—language of Rev 12:9, 20:2. Were it not for these apocalyptic symbols, the talking snake as "devil" would likely never even enter one's imagination. In fact, by modern standards this association qualifies as fairly poor exegesis. As I will show in what follows, the talking snake was an animal in the Garden of Eden: nothing more, nothing less.


"The real question is, 'Could the most powerful and majestic of God's created angels, like a puppeteer with a puppet, have utilized a serpent as his mouthpiece?'"

I don't believe that that is the real question. The real question—in my mind—is why we should merely presume the presence of "the most powerful of God's created angels" in the passage from Genesis 3, when it is never indicated?


"that brilliantly clever and powerful chief of the fallen angels, who in Job 1:17-19 caused fire to fall from heaven and a mighty wind to bring down a house, could have caused certain structure(s) of the serpent's breathing passages

It is interesting that Entrekin brings the Job passage to bear on the topic, and it raises some interesting further questions; the first and foremost of which is, again, WHY do we presume that the talking snake from Genesis 3 is the same character as the "accuser" in Job 1? Furthermore, who is the "Satan" in Job? The word itself is extremely rare in the Hebrew Bible, and it does not ever seem to function in the same sense that it does in the New Testament and beyond. In actual fact, the best characterization of the figure is Job is that he is a "crown prosecutor" in the high court of God. He is never presented as the "wicked angel" from the New Testament period, and as near as I can tell, the original "Satan" (which literally means "accuser") becomes a bit of a scape-goat or a composite figure blended from other Ancient Near Eastern religious traditions.


"Was Satan trying to wrest control of the physical creation from Adam and Eve by tempting them to sin? If so, when he tempted Jesus in the wilderness, he indicated that he had achieved that aim..."

Again, some discussion of the association between the talking snake and the devil is necessary, but further than that, what was the snake's intent in Genesis 3? The story leaves no doubt that he was intent upon tempting Eve, but there is no clear indication as to why. Was he successful? I suppose inasmuch as he convinced Eve to taste the forbidden fruit, but the long-term benefits of this feat are indeed not exactly presented as such. Judge for yourself:

The LORD God said to the serpent,
“Because you have done this,
cursed are you among all animals
and among all wild creatures;
upon your belly you shall go,
and dust you shall eat
all the days of your life.
I will put enmity between you and the woman,
and between your offspring and hers;
he will strike your head,
and you will strike his heel.”

I should like to point out the frequent mistranslation of the Hebrew word shuf in the final doublet. In the first instance the NIV translates it with "crush", and in the second with "strike". In actual fact, the enmity between humankind and "snakekind" is fairly reciprocal: they don't like each other, and will cause one another similar harm. But I digress: The snake—far from becoming the ruler of nations from Jesus' encounter in Luke 4—is "cursed", crawls on his belly, and eats dust. Again, this connection between the talking snake, "Satan" and the "devil" from the Greco-Roman period is imagined.


"What was intended to be ours was robbed from us when the human race was very young, like an inheritance from a toddler. But even then, God told the serpent that He would not endure this injustice...The word 'Seed' here foretells the virgin birth, because Adam's seed is not mentioned. It is a reference to Christ, who was descended from the woman."

This is also a very imaginative and creative conflation of this tradition with the nativity story of Jesus, but again, it does not rest on any good, clear literary evidence from the text itself. The analogy breaks down because commentators such as Henry are fond of pointing to the "seed" as Christ, whilst failing to acknowledge that the enmity pertains to his counter-part in the snake's "seed" as well, and NOT the snake himself. A more practical explanation of the Genesis 3 passage will take this into consideration instead of ignoring it, and will then almost certainly arrive at a different conclusion than that which is frequently present in Christian theology. In what follows, I shall extrapolate upon the purpose and meaning of the story from Genesis 3 from the text itself, and with only its constituent parts informing my analysis.

[Agnostotheist]

(Continued...)

The story of the talking snake in Genesis 3 is an agrarian myth that explained for the ancient Hebrews their own lot as itinerant farmers. It was a cultural, economic "origins" story or "etiology" that sought to show a couple of things: First, that farming was difficult and unpleasant because the first humans were punished for their naivety. Second, that snakes and humans have previous history and will be perpetually at odds with one another because of this same incident (like the Montagues and the Capulets, the offspring of both men and snakes would be forever engaged in pastoral conflict). Third—and perhaps most importantly—that nakedness is shameful as a result of what happened, and that because of this "original sin" humankind must now cover their nakedness.

I think it is important to take particular note of how the story is introduced:

Gen 2:25 says, "The man and his wife were both naked, and they felt no shame. In the verse that immediately follows it is reported that, "...the serpent was more crafty than any of the wild animals the LORD God had made..." (Gen 3:1). What is particularly interesting of these two statements is that the word translated "crafty" is nearly identical to that which is translated "naked". In a primarily oral environment where these stories were experienced, the phonetic similarity and close relationship between these would not have been lost on their hearers. Put more simply, there is an explicit connection made between the nature of the snake and the naivety of the main characters. Furthermore, this naivety disappears as a consequence for having obtained "knowledge"—something that God seems to have intentionally with-held from all of creation, with the lone exception of the "crafty" snake. When the man and the woman eat the fruit "the eyes of both of them were opened". This is a strange consequence from a modern perspective: "knowledge" and "sight" are usually associated with "illumination" and "enlightenment". Rather, in this ancient, agrarian context, such things are to be feared, or at least jealously guarded. The very next verse after the human pair consume the fruit tells us that Adam and Eve "realized they were naked". God in turn when confronts them in his interrogation: "Who told you that you were naked? Have you eaten from the tree that I commanded you not to eat from?" It is fairly clear from its internal context that God was MOST concerned about the peoples' reaction to their own nakedness. Many commentators have called this tale a "coming of age" story that describes the emergence of humanity from child-like mythic naivety to the real world of toil and hard work.

The story in Genesis 3 originally had NOTHING to do with the origins of the "sinful condition" that is constructed by Paul, nor did it have anything to do with the future messianic fervour that eventually (but not entirely) swallowed Second Temple Palestine. It had nothing to do with "evil" or "Satan" or any such things. It was an expression of an agrarian group of people of their own understanding of things: the world was the way it was because of this weird sequence of events. All the other stuff results from some very creative, deliberate and in some cases quite sophisticated intrusions upon the original text of the story. So much so that now, the original intent and function of the Genesis 3 narrative is practically unknown.

[Agnostotheist]

...I would like to note that it is possible for "serpent" in Genesis 1 to be translated as "shining one". "Serpent" can also be an metaphor for Satan. So it doesn't necessarily need to be a literal serpent...

I don't believe that the gloss "shining one" fits the rest of the context of the story. Most notably, the snake is included in Gen 3:1 as part of the animal kingdom, in that he is "more clever" (or "naked"!) than the "animals of the field". The comparative construction indicated by the preposition mem here is most practically understood to show that the snake is part of this class of creatures. In line with the rest of the story and its purpose as a farming tale there is little wonder that it does not concern itself with any animals than those who were "of the field". Second, in the curse, the description of the offending creature as one that crawls on its belly and is prone to be stepped on by people fits the characteristics of a snake. Missing from this are any illustrations of other attributes that we might connect with a "shining one". Compare other appearances of the word nachash in Gen 49:17; Exod 4:3; 7:15 Num 2:17; 21;6, 9; Isa 14:29; Am 5:19; Psa 140:4 Pr 23:32; 30:19; Qoh 10:8, 11.

[Athanasius]

Agnostotheist,

You said, "First and foremost, let it be known that biblical studies is my vocational field, and that because of this, I will necessarily approach Scripture from a primarily naturalistic perspective."

Of course, you are actually free to adopt a theistic perspective if you so choose, though in many, perhaps most academic environments, it might very well cost you your job.

150 years ago, the same vocation would probably have constrained you to take a theistic approach. How times have changed! Metaphysical naturalism is now even the predominant philosophy behind biblical studies in many, perhaps most academic circles.

Theism and naturalism are entirely different metaphysical presuppositions, as as any reader can see by comparing what I wrote with what you have written, they lead down very different paths. This is not only in Biblical studies, but also in life. - Rusty

[Agnostotheist]

Of course, you are actually free to adopt a theistic perspective if you so choose, though in many, perhaps most academic environments, it might very well cost you your job.
Hi Rusty:

I think this depends greatly on how one chooses to define a "theistic perspective". I am and I know a great number of theists in the field (most biblical scholars are still practicing Jews or Christians) but most also recognize that their own religious convictions and practices are quite separate from conducting their own research.


150 years ago, the same vocation would probably have constrained you to take a theistic approach. How times have changed! Metaphysical naturalism is now even the predominant philosophy behind biblical studies in many, perhaps most academic circles.
We are all subject to the influences of our own culture and time. "Metaphysical naturalism" has become the method through which academic research (in practically every field of study) occurs, but this is not through some sort of anti-biblical / religious bias. It happens because this is the most viable approach through which we can learn. I would like to point out though, that none of us is immune to the effects of society. Your own "orchestrated symbolism" is indebted to a form of linear historicism that owes a debt to the Enlightenment. You approach the biblical text in an effort to synthesize ancient and foreign worldviews with your own special brand of rationalism, and I would argue that this strategy fails primarily NOT for its theistic presuppositions, but because it removes the texts themselves from their cultural, historical and social milieux and situates them inappropriately into a modernized perspective. To do so completely bypasses the meaning of the biblical texts in many instances (such as the example from Genesis 3) in favour of something else.


Theism and naturalism are entirely different metaphysical presuppositions, as as any reader can see by comparing what I wrote with what you have written, they lead down very different paths. This is not only in Biblical studies, but also in life. - Rusty
I think that you are wrong in making this distinction. I can still approach the world and my work from a set of naturalistically informed presuppositions, and still maintain my own theistic ideals. I suppose the difference between you and I lies in our use of the biblical text: For my part, I am very interested in its function and meaning. I hope to improve my understanding through gaining a clear idea of how function and meaning have developed through time. From your article, it seems to me that you have already drawn your own conclusions and are most interested in "shoehorning" bits of biblical lore to fit those ideas. In some circles, this might be construed as a form of "idolatry" through which the "Bible" has supplanted God. At what point does one recognize where the "Word of God" ends and where the "person of God" begins?

[Athanasius]

Hi Rusty:

I think this depends greatly on how one chooses to define a "theistic perspective". I am and I know a great number of theists in the field (most biblical scholars are still practicing Jews or Christians) but most also recognize that their own religious convictions and practices are quite separate from conducting their own research.

We are all subject to the influences of our own culture and time. "Metaphysical naturalism" has become the method through which academic research (in practically every field of study) occurs, but this is not through some sort of anti-biblical / religious bias. It happens because this is the most viable approach through which we can learn.... I can still approach the world and my work from a set of naturalistically informed presuppositions, and still maintain my own theistic ideals

Hi Agnostotheist,

Metaphysical naturalism, in and of itself, is not a method, although it can be used to guide one's scientific or academic methodology (methodological naturalism is an example of this). Metaphysical naturalism is the presupposition that there is no supernatural. By it's very nature, it is biased against theism. To say that it is the most viable approach through which we can learn about the Bible is about the same as saying, "Religious beliefs and convictions aside, the most valuable way to discern the truth about the Bible is is to assume that there is no God."

I personally would be unwilling to live in the compartmentalized schizophrenia of trying to hold to both of these metaphysical philosophies at the same time (theism and naturalism), one in my professional life, and the other in my personal life, which at their heart, are diametrically in opposition to one another.



I would like to point out though, that none of us is immune to the effects of society. Your own "orchestrated symbolism" is indebted to a form of linear historicism that owes a debt to the Enlightenment. You approach the biblical text in an effort to synthesize ancient and foreign worldviews with your own special brand of rationalism, and I would argue that this strategy fails primarily NOT for its theistic presuppositions, but because it removes the texts themselves from their cultural, historical and social milieux and situates them inappropriately into a modernized perspective. To do so completely bypasses the meaning of the biblical texts in many instances (such as the example from Genesis 3) in favour of something else.

I don't think that the apostles Paul (2 Cor 11:3) and John (Rev 12:9) would have disagreed with my view of Satan being behind the serpent. And Isaiah might not have, either (see Isaiah 27:1). In fact, my own perspective is influenced much more heavily from biblical writings than any other source. The New Testament writers certainly approached the OT scriptures from a theistic perspective. Your naturalistic approach seems much more modern.


I suppose the difference between you and I lies in our use of the biblical text: For my part, I am very interested in its function and meaning. I hope to improve my understanding through gaining a clear idea of how function and meaning have developed through time. From your article, it seems to me that you have already drawn your own conclusions and are most interested in "shoehorning" bits of biblical lore to fit those ideas.

You could make the same accusations of the NT writers. The fact is that either presupposition (theism or naturalism) draws conclusions apriori about the existence of the supernatural. Allowing either to guide our interpretative methodology results in a filtering of hypotheses which do not fit the underlying philosophy we have chosen. With methodological naturalism, for instance, any hypothesis that makes allowance for the supernatural is rejected from the start. So one cannot truthfully claim that a naturalistic methodology is less biased than a theistic methodology. Of course, my methodology is more than that. It is one which presumes that all of scripture, in the original autographs, is true. So I am not "shoehorning" as you put it, but rather adopting a harmonizing intepretative approach which seeks to allow each presumed truth to shed light on the other, just as the NT writers did. And given the presupposition that all of scripture is true, this is a valid approach because truths do illuminate one another.

I would agree, however that my article takes a topical rather than expository approach. However, I think that an expository approach would have been inappropriate for the editorial genre.




In some circles, this might be construed as a form of "idolatry" through which the "Bible" has supplanted God. At what point does one recognize where the "Word of God" ends and where the "person of God" begins?

I can see how someone who does not regard all of the Bible as the word of God, but portions of it (or even all?) as "lore" might think that. If believing that God has been at work through history, and has spoken through the scriptures, were a form of idolatry, I would be guilty as charged. I do not worship the Bible, though I do worship and trust the Source whom I believe inspired it.

Agnostotheist, you seem to be a very personable man. I hate it when I am compelled to disagree with a such a polished and polite fellow! But it cannot be avoided. At their heart, our methodological approaches to biblical truth are diametrically opposed in the perspectives which guide them. If we are to defend them, we cannot but clash. So please do not take my disagreement personally.

I do, however, sincerely wish and pray all ot the truly best for you! :smile:

[Agnostotheist]

Hi Agnostotheist,

Metaphysical naturalism, in and of itself, is not a method, although it can be used to guide one's scientific or academic methodology (methodological naturalism is an example of this). Metaphysical naturalism is the presupposition that there is no supernatural. By it's very nature, it is biased against theism. To say that it is the most viable approach through which we can learn about the Bible is about the same as saying, "Religious beliefs and convictions aside, the most valuable way to discern the truth about the Bible is is to assume that there is no God."
I disagree with your assessment somewhat that "metaphysical naturalism" is biased against theism, in that I don't necessarily think that all brands of theism must adhere to a belief in supernatural activity. In much more of a deistic approach, God could be imagined as adhering quite strictly to the governing principles of nature, and thus not "supernatural" at all. In fact, I would expect that the early Hebrews in particular would not have described God as a "supernatural" being, especially given that in their perception of reality, there was only the natural world, and God was very much a part of it. I can still worship, serve and experience God in "nature" without at all resorting to an insistence that he must or ever does intervene counter to what always naturally occurs.


I personally would be unwilling to live in the compartmentalized schizophrenia of trying to hold to both of these metaphysical philosophies at the same time (theism and naturalism), one in my professional life, and the other in my personal life, which at their heart, are diametrically in opposition to one another.
To each his own, I guess. In many respects my naturalistic approach to God coupled with what I consider a healthy sense of agnosticism has actually proven to be quite beneficial to me spiritually. Skepticism and questions are what drive me to pursue God, and not to be complacent in a false sense of certainty. On the other hand, I could no longer bear to deceive myself and to lobby on behalf of a biblicism that did not square with reality. It was both intellectually and spiritually freeing to come to a place in which I was able to treat the Bible honestly and critically,as part of a wider context of Ancient Near Eastern literature, religion, culture and society.


I don't think that the apostles Paul (2 Cor 11:3) and John (Rev 12:9) would have disagreed with my view of Satan being behind the serpent. And Isaiah might not have, either (see Isaiah 27:1). In fact, my own perspective is influenced much more heavily from biblical writings than any other source. The New Testament writers certainly approached the OT scriptures from a theistic perspective. Your naturalistic approach seems much more modern.
Again, I disagree. There is no indication at all that Paul and the Apostles saw that Satan was "behind the serpent". For all we know—and we really have no reason to assume otherwise—they believed that the snake WAS the devil, and that this creature had the natural ability to talk. I completely agree that the NT writers obviously approached the Scriptures from a "theistic perspective", but that is not really my criticism here. The Apostles were operating from a limited base of knowledge, and from within a worldview that tolerated such ideas as talking snakes. Yours does not, and that is abundantly evident in your elaborate attempt to explain HOW such a thing could possibly take place in a creature that cannot physically produce the necessary sounds to be able to speak. I'm fairly certain that all of them would have found your essay quite baffling because you have attempted to marry a modern sense of rational and scientifically informed sensibility to an ancient worldview of mysticism and mythology, and they simply do not work well together...at all.



You could make the same accusations of the NT writers.
Absolutely.


The fact is that either presupposition (theism or naturalism) draws conclusions apriori about the existence of the supernatural. Allowing either to guide our interpretative methodology results in a filtering of hypotheses which do not fit the underlying philosophy we have chosen. With methodological naturalism, for instance, any hypothesis that makes allowance for the supernatural is rejected from the start. So one cannot truthfully claim that a naturalistic methodology is less biased than a theistic methodology.
Fair enough. But I think that we can agree that some biases are simply much more profitable to certain arenas of research. Science demands a naturalistic methodology because it is concerned only with nature. My own interest is literature, religion, culture and history, and given the way in which the biblical literature fist within its surrounding milieux, my own approach will necessarily draw the simplest and most practical explanations for things from these comparable pieces of data.


Of course, my methodology is more than that. It is one which presumes that all of scripture, in the original autographs, is true. So I am not "shoehorning" as you put it, but rather adopting a harmonizing intepretative approach which seeks to allow each presumed truth to shed light on the other, just as the NT writers did. And given the presupposition that all of scripture is true, this is a valid approach because truths do illuminate one another.
But given that there is no such thing as an "autograph" (this is a scholarly construct that is gradually being rejected within the realm of biblical studies), and given that your own measure of "presumed truth" rests on a burden of proof that would have been unassailable to the biblical authors; given the extent to which our knowledge of this world has increased since the time that these texts were spoken and then written, to merely presume that they are "true" (in what sense?) is a particularly massive presupposition to make in the first place. I understand the approach as I once subscribed to it. But my own experience with harmonizations too often did not square with other pieces of historical, cultural or scientific evidence; so much so that it no longer made any sense to pursue something that was so clearly futile.


I would agree, however that my article takes a topical rather than expository approach. However, I think that an expository approach would have been inappropriate for the editorial genre.
Understood. My apologies. As I said, I found the article interesting, and it struck me as I read it how far the interpretive branches for this particular text have stretched and twisted from its original sense.



I can see how someone who does not regard all of the Bible as the word of God, but portions of it (or even all?) as "lore" might think that. If believing that God has been at work through history, and has spoken through the scriptures, were a form of idolatry, I would be guilty as charged. I do not worship the Bible, though I do worship and trust the Source whom I believe inspired it.
Perhaps my last statements were a bit harsh, but it is a common criticism from other branches within the Church (particularly in Eastern Orthodoxy) that Evangelicals are "biblicists". I expect that you don't "worship" the Bible—at least not in a traditional sense—but I am very leery of approaches to faith, God and religion which are so certain in their understanding of the Bible. I think what troubles me is that the Bible and its interpretation is a symbiotic process that has changed dramatically over time. The doctrines of sola Scriptura and inerrency threaten to replace the authority of Scripture—which was always a dynamic community "project" that extended well beyond the primary texts!—with rather an infallible method. If we are bound to this method, how can we hope to learn anything at all?


Agnostotheist, you seem to be a very personable man. I hate it when I am compelled to disagree with a such a polished and polite fellow! But it cannot be avoided. At their heart, our methodological approaches to biblical truth are diametrically opposed in the perspectives which guide them. If we are to defend them, we cannot but clash. So please do not take my disagreement personally.

I do, however, sincerely wish and pray all ot the truly best for you! :smile:
Thank you.

And please, do not feel at all bad about causing any offense. I live for the dialogue.

[kudos]

Darwin argues in On the Origin of Species that our classification of animal species is based largely on our outward observations of them, and that these classifications have limited merit in delineating them ancestrally. Well, huh, that's what Genesis at least implies:
And out of the ground the Lord God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air; and brought them unto Adam to see what he would call them: and whatsoever Adam called every living creature, that was the name thereof. 20 And Adam gave names to all cattle, and to the fowl of the air, and to every beast of the field; but for Adam there was not found an help meet for him.
Gen 2:19-20 (KJV)
It's always been man that classified with nomenclature the living things on this planet. For the Bible tells me so! You guys don't give Genesis enough credit. It says He made them all the same way "out of the ground"--a reasonable enough explanation for abiogenesis and the following evolutionary formation of the life on the planet, especially for nomadic sheepherders. I submit that it's possible He didn't name them Himself because, to Him, they were all one and the same, exactly as He purposed. And don't get me started on "creative days." The sun and moon were "set in the firmament of heaven" on the fourth day. I'm thinking I need the sun set in the firmament for a 24 day. The Genesis account allows, rationally, that at least days one through three need not be 24 hours long. What does set in the firmament mean? Just a guess, but how about the earth and moon settled into the standard regular orbits and rotations that we now see. Is it really so improbable? As for talking snakes--if you don't believe in spirit beings capable of speaking through an animal, you're not going to be able to swallow the overarching story in the Book, that God, in the Person of His Wisdom, the Son, came and died to save us. That's something that requires relational knowledge, knowledge of the eternal, the timeless, beyond cause and effect and so untestable. It's called faith. You can't get there by experiment.

[Athanasius]

I disagree with your assessment somewhat that "metaphysical naturalism" is biased against theism, in that I don't necessarily think that all brands of theism must adhere to a belief in supernatural activity. In much more of a deistic approach, God could be imagined as adhering quite strictly to the governing principles of nature, and thus not "supernatural" at all. In fact, I would expect that the early Hebrews in particular would not have described God as a "supernatural" being, especially given that in their perception of reality, there was only the natural world, and God was very much a part of it. I can still worship, serve and experience God in "nature" without at all resorting to an insistence that he must or ever does intervene counter to what always naturally occurs.

I agree with you that not all brands of theism believe in supernatural activity. But pure metaphysical naturalism simply posits there is no supernatural at all. It sounds to me as though you believe in a weak form of theism (with a God who keeps his hands off nature, perhaps from the big bang to the heat death of the universe), but choose methodological naturalism as your philosophy of science and biblical study. If that's the case, then your methodology would rightly complement your view of God, and I must apologize for accusing you of "compartmentalized schizophrenia."

I think perhaps you meant to say methodological naturalism is not biased against theism. This is the philosophy of science which holds that for purposes of science, we should assume there is no supernatural (whether there is or not). While it does not does not deny the supernatural per se, it does do so in practical application. So there is still a great degree of bias against the supernatural - complete bias, in fact - in the application of the methodology itself.

Of course, in order to conduct science effectively, an agnostic or theistic philosophy of science - the kind that guided Newton and Mendel - must not be completely anti-naturalistic. These men still had to assume that except where God intervenes, the laws of nature prevail. Provided this is done, useful science has been, and still can be conducted with these approaches. And I think they are preferable to an exclusively naturalistic methodology, because if God has interacted with His creation, pure methodological naturalism completely ignores this. Thus, it is not an open and unbiased inquiry into the truth.

Christian theism (and by this I mean a theism which is in accord with the teachings of the NT), offers explanations for sin and death, and a just but loving God who desires to rescue men from the consequences of sin. He also has stepped into time and space, especially in the person of Christ, to reach out to man in His fallen condition, and to offer us salvation from it.

But to me, a deistic God- especially one who takes a "hands off" approach to the universe, seems cold and aloof from his creation (if we could even call it a "creation," since He simply allowed it to happen naturalistically). The philosophical problems with such a God are many. In addition, He seems quite disposable, since the world would be the same with or without Him. It is only a small step to move from this kind of deism to outright atheism.


Skepticism and questions are what drive me to pursue God, and not to be complacent in a false sense of certainty.

How can you pursue a God who remains aloof from His creation? Or do you believe that He is willing to interact with man? If He is, how can we be certain there are any boundaries beyond which He refuses to interact with His creation? And if it is possible for you to interact with God, might He not have interacted with the prophets and biblical writers, and with nature itself when He chose to? If this is possible, then it seems to me that an academic methodology which is open to these possibilities - one that is not exclusively naturalistic - is more fitting and reasonable.

Lastly, do you not even believe that there were original autographs of the NT epistles?

[Agnostotheist]

...How can you pursue a God who remains aloof from His creation? Or do you believe that He is willing to interact with man? If He is, how can we be certain there are any boundaries beyond which He refuses to interact with His creation? And if it is possible for you to interact with God, might He not have interacted with the prophets and biblical writers, and with nature itself when He chose to? If this is possible, then it seems to me that an academic methodology which is open to these possibilities - one that is not exclusively naturalistic - is more fitting and reasonable...
There is a lot here that I hope to address adequately, but I just got back into town and need to get some sleep. To whet your appetite, I think there is a problem in some of your assumptions of my position whereby the denial of "supernatural" activity is the same as denying the interactivity of God. I just don't see it that way. I believe that the prophets and the apostles were proclaiming the word of God in their writings (and I need to to be clear that I do hold the "word of God" to be the simple and plain presentation of what was written in the Bible; it is more akin to the "purpose", "nature" or "reality" of God). However, I do not think that this requires an extraordinary event; nor do I feel that this renders said writings as immune from human errors or what we would consider errors of culture.


Lastly, do you not even believe that there were original autographs of the NT epistles?
Whoops. Not exactly. My research is in Second Temple Judaism so I tend to default to the Old Testament and Apocryphal/Pseudepigraphal literature. I don't believe that there is any hope of retrieving an "autograph" from a single piece of writing from the Old Testament. The NT is different, in that the canonical Gospels are probably much closer to their original form, but even there again, it becomes difficult to determine what that even was (i.e. Oral tradition or enacted symbolic narratives?) The Pauline epistles are probably the closest we have to reasonably clear representations of the autographs, but this is a slim selection of the entire contents of the Protestant Canon.

[Hooks]

Their is no legitimate disagreement among scientists on the theory of evolution, which simply is that life forms change, and often become more complex, evolving from (or to use less contentious wording "came into existence after changes in") less complex life forms through a process of natural selection. One can certainly hold a position that they believe that the theory of evoution will eventually be proven to be invalid. But it has not been proven invalid. Scientists are welcome to try to prove it is wrong, and hopefully some will continue to do just that. However, until it is proven invalid, it remain a valid theory. To say any rational person can say, "I don't believe the theory of evolution," is not much different than saying, "I don't believe the New York Yankees won Major League Baseball's World Series in 2009." One is entitled to believe what he or she choses, but in the case of not believing evolutionary theory is valid, there is no basis for that belief in reality.

[Athanasius]

Their is no legitimate disagreement among scientists on the theory of evolution, which simply is that life forms change, and often become more complex, evolving from (or to use less contentious wording "came into existence after changes in") less complex life forms through a process of natural selection. One can certainly hold a position that they believe that the theory of evoution will eventually be proven to be invalid. But it has not been proven invalid. Scientists are welcome to try to prove it is wrong, and hopefully some will continue to do just that. However, until it is proven invalid, it remain a valid theory. To say any rational person can say, "I don't believe the theory of evolution," is not much different than saying, "I don't believe the New York Yankees won Major League Baseball's World Series in 2009." One is entitled to believe what he or she choses, but in the case of not believing evolutionary theory is valid, there is no basis for that belief in reality.

Where in my posts above did I ever deny the scientifically popular (though not universal) theory status of macroevolution (which you seem to equate with the broader word "evolution")?

This type of strategic posturing "Evolution = macroevelolution, and you either believe evolution, or you don''t." combines an overly broad definition with an either-or fallacy, when in fact there are other options. No informed biblical creationist is going to tell you that there is no validity at all to evolution. Yes, we think that Darwin got some things right!

We are nearly all agreed that natural selection and variation occur, and that natural selection tends to "select" variations most conducive to the survival and reproduction of a species. Most of us do not deny that speciation occurs, either. We are not attempting to deny either of these realities. What we deny is that new complex structures can arise through this process, so that one "kind" of animal (roughly the equivalent to the "family" taxonomic level) can give rise to another "kind." While micro-evolution has been observed, this kind of macro-evolution has not.

So, we do not deny that evolution is an unconscious "tinkerer." What we question is the idea of a "blind watchmaker" (as Dawkins phrases it): that given the laws of this universe, non-intelligence can ever produce complex systems with the mark (or appearance, as Dawkins would say) of having been designed by an intelligence.

It takes no intelligence to tinker. But it does take intelligence to engineer a complex machine.

The very term Dawkins uses, "blind watchmaker," seems to imply some sort of conscious awareness. But this makes natural selection seem to appear as somewhat more than it actually is. in reality, it has no consciousness.

Paley's argument (and natural theology) is more valid now than ever, now that we are aware of the incredible complexity of the cell. In fact, Paley anticipated Dawkin's argument long before it was written:


Sixthly, he [a man who found a watch] would be surprised to hear that the mechanism of a watch was no proof of contrivance, only a motive to induce the mind to think so. (From chapter one of Paley's Natural Theology.)

Considering the magnitudes of complexity of biological structures beyond even that of a simple watch, at the most fundamental level, which is the most reasonable idea? That the mind-bogglingly complex biological machinery of the cell (or any complex organ), was designed by an intelligence, or formed by unconscious, unintelligent, natural events? Which of these two propositions is the most reasonable to bet your eternal destiny on?

[emulator]

*see below

[emulator]

Also, your barayim hypothesis is impossible. It is estimated that there are anywhere between 5-50 million species on Earth. To be fair, we'll say 15 million. It's laughable to say that a few "barayim" would produce that number in a few thousand years fresh from the Ark. Not to mention the millions of other species that have gone extinct. How many events of speciation would that involve per year?

That's a little trick I call math.


Well this is rather easy to be honest; since several other posts regarded this statistic, I thought I might chime in. if the species only double twice per millenium:

let's say there were 8,000 species on the ark we propose.
500 years later there are 16,000 species
500 years later there are 32,000 species
500 years later there are 64,000 species
500 years later there are 128,000 species
500 years later there are 256,000 species
500 years later there are 512,000 species
500 years later there are 1,024,000 species
500 years later there are 2,048,000 species
500 years later there are 4,096,000 species

That's forty-five hundred years after the flood, it's close to you're estimate and it doesn't even take into account fish and other creatures of the sea or bacterium etc..

The scientific method is heavily reliant upon observation and repeatability of the experiment. Noone can reasonably/scientifically make a conjecture regarding the origins of the universe without making assumptions and having beliefs that direct their faith. That is your imaginations are subjective to your notions. Atheists forget that most of the people who had their hands in the recent stages of Scientific thought actually believed in God (Einstien, Galileo, Copernicus, Newton.) To say that modern scientists (as you define them) are open minded is a fallacy. Anyone who suggests creation as a valid possibillity will be immediately and informally dismissed as another crackpot (for evidence see the other posts or the movie Expelled by Ben Stein.)
In any case I really enjoyed the article, Trout, and can only pray that I avoid the kind of bigotry that Maher so often employs.

[Athanasius]

Well this is rather easy to be honest; since several other posts regarded this statistic, I thought I might chime in. if the species only double twice per millenium:

let's say there were 8,000 species on the ark we propose.
500 years later there are 16,000 species
500 years later there are 32,000 species
500 years later there are 64,000 species
500 years later there are 128,000 species
500 years later there are 256,000 species
500 years later there are 512,000 species
500 years later there are 1,024,000 species
500 years later there are 2,048,000 species
500 years later there are 4,096,000 species

That's forty-five hundred years after the flood, it's close to you're estimate and it doesn't even take into account fish and other creatures of the sea or bacterium etc..

The scientific method is heavily reliant upon observation and repeatability of the experiment. Noone can reasonably/scientifically make a conjecture regarding the origins of the universe without making assumptions and having beliefs that direct their faith. That is your imaginations are subjective to your notions. Atheists forget that most of the people who had their hands in the recent stages of Scientific thought actually believed in God (Einstien, Galileo, Copernicus, Newton.) To say that modern scientists (as you define them) are open minded is a fallacy. Anyone who suggests creation as a valid possibillity will be immediately and informally dismissed as another crackpot (for evidence see the other posts or the movie Expelled by Ben Stein.)
In any case I really enjoyed the article, Trout, and can only pray that I avoid the kind of bigotry that Maher so often employs.

Good points!