Interpret Genesis 1 to make sense

[whag]

It is more a matter of Heaven being, among other things, a repository of blue-prints (for want of a better term) for the things that exist in this universe. The creation in Eden may have established the rules for the propagation of life on Earth (etc.), which would result in evolution being "random" within the parameters of a set of "natural laws" broadly governing progression. So - no transfer ... and initially, no need for a "wardrobe". There is no Biblical indication of any kind of portal that needed passing when heaven touched down on Earth in a later record - it was simply a "lifting of the veil".

That's a crude version of ID. Contrary to what you said, it's poised to reject scientific findings when natural explanations for life's fecundity arise, as they often do.

[tabibito]

Well - if it is a crude form of ID, so be it. To me, the idea that evolution follows paths of development that seem to have underlying rules seems reasonably evident.
Science might even in time be able to predict what kinds of mutations will result when certain conditions are met, and even devise conditions that will be able to guide mutations and the development of new and desirable species, or species with reduced harmful effects on humans.
If there are no rules that won't be possible. If there are rules, and they just happened, again, so be it.

[whag]

Well - if it is a crude form of ID, so be it. To me, the idea that evolution follows paths of development that seem to have underlying rules seems reasonably evident.

You couched the option as being in harmony with the scientific method, which it isn't. Science doesn't view every rule as having inexplicable sorcery behind it.

Science might even in time be able to predict what kinds of mutations will result when certain conditions are met, and even devise conditions that will be able to guide mutations and the development of new and desirable species, or species with reduced harmful effects on humans.
If there are no rules that won't be possible. If there are rules, and they just happened, again, so be it.

I just wanted to clarify that it *is* at odds with scientific epistemology.

[tabibito]

Science doesn't view every rule as having inexplicable sorcery behind it.

Does science view any "law of nature" as having no cause? - that is to say, is there any hard data underlying the view that the laws "just happened", or is it just an ideological presupposition?
I would hesitate to accept the idea that the rules governing the processes of the universe "just happened" rather than having been "devised and laid down", and to date, I haven't seen any scientific evidence to show that they did "just happen". And in the absence of scientific evidence to the contrary, I don't consider a belief that the rules to have been devised as any more ideological than the idea that they weren't.

[shunyadragon]

Does science view any "law of nature" as having no cause? - that is to say, is there any hard data underlying the view that the laws "just happened", or is it just an ideological presupposition?

This is not an assumption of Metaphysical Naturalism is not that Natural Law has no cause. The only assumption of Methodological Naturalism is that scientific methods can only investigate natural causes.

I would hesitate to accept the idea that the rules governing the processes of the universe "just happened" rather than having been "devised and laid down", and to date, I haven't seen any scientific evidence to show that they did "just happen". And in the absence of scientific evidence to the contrary, I don't consider a belief that the rules to have been devised as any more ideological than the idea that they weren't.

Science does not go with any concept of "just happened." Methodological Naturalism simply describes our physical existence as a cause and effect relationship and as observed things happen according to Natural Laws. Any assumption or belief that the 'rules and laws' were devised by a 'Source' other then natural causes would be a theological consideration, and not a question for science.

[tabibito]

I would have thought a search for underlying causes would be a matter for science, and that science would be making no presuppositions about the nature of those causes until enough data became available to allow for a working hypothesis. Or am I putting too much faith in the reputed impartiality of science?

[whag]

Does science view any "law of nature" as having no cause? - that is to say, is there any hard data underlying the view that the laws "just happened", or is it just an ideological presupposition?

There's difference between presupposing a self-assembling, self-propagating structure (such as the first cell) and presupposing that structures were made instantly in the ether. There's precedence for the former and no precedence for the latter. The latter is explicitly informed by ideology.

I would hesitate to accept the idea that the rules governing the processes of the universe "just happened" rather than having been "devised and laid down", and to date, I haven't seen any scientific evidence to show that they did "just happen".

I would hesitate to apply those rules to a loving creator and, to date, haven't seen any evidence that show rules had to be concocted in a mythical place.

And in the absence of scientific evidence to the contrary, I don't consider a belief that the rules to have been devised as any more ideological than the idea that they weren't.

The rule of propagation says that species, including human beings, reproduce in large quantities to counteract high mortality which is woven into teleology from the outset. Christian theology, however, insists mortality was introduced by Satan or man or both somewhere along the timeline. You may have solved your particular conundrum by speculating about creation in heaven, but at the expense of inventing a new protology where predation, disease, and calamity were in the original blueprints.

[shunyadragon]

I would have thought a search for underlying causes would be a matter for science, and that science would be making no presuppositions about the nature of those causes until enough data became available to allow for a working hypothesis. Or am I putting too much faith in the reputed impartiality of science?

It not the impartiality of science that is at issue. Science is just capable determining the underlying causes beyond the scope of Methodological Naturalism, which is limited to the scientific methods for the investigation and falsification of theories and hypothesis concerning natural physical phenomenon. The impartiality of science would be that of a neutral position between the metaphysical positions of Philosophical Naturalism (atheist position), and theological explanations for the origins and causes of the nature of our physical existence.

[Truthseeker]

Quite right - thirty-five cubits is recorded in 2 Chronicles 3:15 - apologies for my error.

Writeup for the pillars. (facebook)

Chapter.........Pillars (height in cubits).......Capitals (height)
1 Kings 7:15...............18 .......................5 (verse 16)
2 Kings 25:17..............18 .......................3 (verse 17)
2 Chronicles 3:15.........35 .......................5 (verse 15)
Jeremiah 52:21............18 .......................5 (verse 22)

It seems as though the translation ought to be "two pillars whose heights total 35 cubits." Note that the height of either pillar may be, say, 17.7 cubits, rounded to 18 cubits. Multiplying 17.7 by 2 yields 35.4, which is rounded to 35. I am not sure about the translation though, but it's now up to you to totally discredit it. As for the 2 Kings "error" I'll look into that by and by. It may have been a copyist error after all.

[tabibito]

It seems as though the translation ought to be "two pillars whose heights total 35 cubits."

No. The word here is "orek" (singular): for a combined length totalling 35 cubits" "arekam" (plural) would be required. The fact is demonstrated by 2 Chronicles 3:11, where the combination span of the wings of the two cherubim is 20 cubits arekam, not 20 cubits orek.

[tabibito]

The rule of propagation says that species, including human beings, reproduce in large quantities to counteract high mortality which is woven into teleology from the outset. Christian theology, however, insists mortality was introduced by Satan or man or both somewhere along the timeline. You may have solved your particular conundrum by speculating about creation in heaven, but at the expense of inventing a new protology where predation, disease, and calamity were in the original blueprints.

Ah - that's what you meant by theological conflicts. It could be squared away easily by standard apologetic procedures, but given that I find those abhorrent, I'll wait until I have investigated whether it is a matter of apologetic rationalisation or a real explanation.

[Quantum Weirdness]

No. The word here is "orek" (singular): for a combined length totalling 35 cubits" "arekam" (plural) would be required. The fact is demonstrated by 2 Chronicles 3:11, where the combination span of the wings of the two cherubim is 20 cubits arekam, not 20 cubits orek.

Sigh, there is a singular orek of plural nouns, you know.

Psalm 21:4 for instance.

[tabibito]

Sigh, there is a singular orek of plural nouns, you know.

Psalm 21:4 for instance.

Pillars are discrete objects.
Indeed, there is more than one occurrence of a orek associated with a plural form noun. It takes some working out whether a plural form actually refers to a number - 2 or more physical objects, or whether it is an intensive plural; for example, where it refers to an honorific plural, or other forms of intensive plural such as "chambers" for a block of chambers rather than a number of discrete chambers, and of course "length of days" when the term refers to a life span.
Given that pillars are discrete objects, arekam is the correct form if the length is a combined figure.

However, the heights of the capitals can't be wormed around and rationalised to pretend that there is no contradiction. John Wesley did propose the idea that the capitals were 3 cubits high, and added bits padded it out to 5. That would throw another reference (1 Kings 7:16) into error, because that one says they were made 5 cubits high. That is, they were 5 cubits high when they were cast.

[Quantum Weirdness]

Pillars are discrete objects.
Indeed, there is more than one occurrence of a orek associated with a plural form noun. It takes some working out whether a plural form actually refers to a number - 2 or more physical objects, or whether it is an intensive plural; for example, where it refers to an honorific plural, or other forms of intensive plural such as "chambers" for a block of chambers rather than a number of discrete chambers, and of course "length of days" when the term refers to a life span.
Given that pillars are discrete objects, arekam is the correct form if the length is a combined figure.

Orek references length in a horizontal manner. (the references in exodus merely imply that they were made on a horizontal axis.) So, if anything, the chronicler is simply referencing to their horizontal length side by side.

Btw You can have length of branches (Ezek 31:7) and length of gates (Ezek 40:18). Did these things touch each other?

However, the heights of the capitals can't be wormed around and rationalised to pretend that there is no contradiction. John Wesley did propose the idea that the capitals were 3 cubits high, and added bits padded it out to 5. That would throw another reference (1 Kings 7:16) into error, because that one says they were made 5 cubits high. That is, they were 5 cubits high when they were cast.

3 cubits is said to be in Error by the Pulpit commentary. And it could easily be between 4 and 5 cubits (thus both being used as round numbers). But it could also be a case of ma besay-il.

[tabibito]

Orek references length in a horizontal manner.

Probably true. Given that three of the references show "orek" the fact wouldn't change anything.

(the references in exodus merely imply that they were made on a horizontal axis.) So, if anything, the chronicler is simply referencing to their horizontal length side by side.

Horizontal length, end to end, is specified. The left wing tip of one angel touching a wall, the right touching the left wing tip of the other angel, its right wing tip touching the opposite wall.

Btw You can have length of branches (Ezek 31:7) and length of gates (Ezek 40:18). Did these things touch each other?

Ezekiel 40:18 - The length of the branches - Did the combined measure of the branches amount to a great length, or does orek imply that the length of each (significant) branch was great?
Ezekiel 31:7 The length of the gates is a single span - against which the pavement is being measured: the focus is on the length of the pavement, not on the gates themselves. If the gates themselves were being measured, orek would imply the length of each. If the combined width of the gates were being measured against the pavement, you would have the arekam of the gates being equal to that of the pavement.

3 cubits is said to be in Error by the Pulpit commentary. And it could easily be between 4 and 5 cubits (thus both being used as round numbers). But it could also be a case of ma besay-il.

Yep - 3 cubits is an error, and 3 cubits is recorded by the Bible. 4 cubits is specified for the capitals of the pillars inside the temple.