How Literally do you interpret Genesis?

[QED]

Some say that they believe it is un-Biblical to interpret scripture as being non-literal for any reasons other than context that clearly shows a different interpretation is appropriate, or information from other passages that elucidate the non-literal nature of the passage in question.

Where do you stand?

Genesis 7:11 In the six hundredth year of Noah's life, in the second month, the seventeenth day of the month, the same day were all the fountains of the great deep broken up, and the windows of heaven were opened.

[ACFaith.Com]

It mythical but that doesn't mean its not functionally God's word.

Vinnie

[RufusAtticus]

Are you the Vinnie that I think you are?

[QED]

Whoops! I messed up the poll - I should have said 2 Timothy 3:16 in the fourth option. Apologies all around.

Let's see some more votes!

[Bubba]

I agree with Vinnie.

Bubba

[QED]

I selected "other." I believe in human authorship of the Bible, but I am very skeptical of claims that are made for it of Divine inspiration. I believe that it is always wise to be careful of those who claim to speak for God, whether directly or by proxy. Most Christians are too humble to coopt the Bible's claims of Divine authorship for the purpose of cloaking their own doctrines in the mantle of Divine infallibilty, but there are some who will.

My reluctance to believe those who would usurp the deity by placing their own words in his mouth has been sharply criticized by some of those less than humble theists, who believe that by giving their interpretation of the Bible, they are speaking with the force of the word of God. One has gone so far as to identify me as a "God-hater" on this board because I disagreed with him on issues of scientific evidence.

I sometimes find it necessary to remind those who would have me choose "God's truth" over "man's reason," that their ideas about the nature of "God's Truth" are just that.

They sometimes find it hard to believe that their own ideas (i.e. their opinions of, or interpretations of the Bible) are "man's fallible reason". You ask them straight up if they consider themselves God, and they say no. But if you disagree with their opinion then you are calling God a liar.

Likewise, if you say ask whether Paul or Luke were Gods, the answer is no. But consider Paul and Luke to be fallible, and once again you are calling God a liar. Because Paul and Luke said that Paul and Luke were speaking on God's authority.

But I stray too far from the OP's topic. This thread is not about those usurpers of God's authority. It is about a question of literal interpretation. Some Biblical literalists claim that every word of the Bible must be considered a literal truth, despite an acknowledge human partnership in the authoring, with exceptions only in cases where the context or other scripture points to a non-literal interpretation.

I don't think that their claim is true. I think that these same literalists will consider Gen 7:11 to contain figurative language about the windows of heaven, but do not do so because of the Biblical context or other scripture. I think these literalists would do well to rethink their position in light of this. There are two sides of the road for them to fall on in response to this question. They can maintain their position, at the expense of having to believe the absurdity that there are literal windows to heaven. Or they can abandon their position and interpret passages non-literally when the context of God's "other book" (nature) demands it be so.

The former group will obviously constitute a fringe that is politically powerless: as harmless as the flat-earthers.

The latter group will find that much of their reason for resisting the science of life has evaporated, and may be inspired to take a fresh look at the evidence.

Unfortunately, I doubt that any of these creationist-literalists will honestly consider the question to see which side of the road they will fall on, and adopt the corresponding position.

[Blake Reas]

I do believe scripture is inspired. But I hold to a modified twenty four hour view. The modication comes from the findings of the literary frame work hypothesis. Also for what it is worth I do think that it is a book of it's time period. So in other words I would not expect for there to be things such as the equation for E=MC2 or anything like that. I am open to it having another meaning but I have found all the other cases unconvincing except for certain aspects of the Literary Framework Hypothesis.

By His Grace, For His Glory,
Blake

[QED]

Blake,

I do believe scripture is inspired. But I hold to a modified twenty four hour view. The modication comes from the findings of the literary frame work hypothesis.

So you would not consider yourself a literalist? Could you expound more on the literary frame work hypothesis, and how it relates to literalism and/or inerrancy? You said you believed in "inspiration" - did you mark option 4 on that basis, or do you diagree with the position of divine inspiration, with authoritative applicability only to doctrinal and ethical messages?

If you are not a strict literalist, why do you hold to a "24-hour" view of any kind (modified or not)?

I don't see any votes registered in the two "strict literalist" categories that believe the text must be interpreted literally without good contextual or scriptural reasons. Would I be safe to assume, then, that you do not hold such a view? If not, could I ask how you account for the heavenly windows of Gen 7:11?

[Blake Reas]

I believe passages must be taken literally unless there are scriptural indications to the contrary, and I believe that there are, or were, windows in the sky.

I believe passages must be taken literally unless there are scriptural indications to the contrary, and I believe that there is a scriptural reason to believe Gen 7:11 does not refer to literal "windows" in the sky

The first option it stupid to begin with. Of course it was not literal windows! I do line up to teh second option but I did not think my view was represented. I will post more about the LFH tommorow.

By His Grace, For His Glory
Blake

[ACFaith.Com]

03-07-2003 @ 11:37 PM
RufusAtticus:

Are you the Vinnie that I think you are?

I be him--a fellow IIer ;)

Vinnie

[Sera Sixwings]

Hi.

I think it's many things, written by many people, reflecting layers of myth, folk history, codes of conduct, and apologetics.

To be honest, I'm not sure what is implied by saying that Scripture is inspired. I would think that Disney was inspired to create Mickey Mouse, and Mark Twain to write Adventures of Huckleberry Finn. So, it seems to me, calling something inspired leaves such a wide latitude for interpretation that it really isn't saying much at all. It there a Christian-specific meaning of the word?

[QED]

03-08-2003 @ 05:28 AM
Blake Reas:

The first option it stupid to begin with.

It does seem so. There are likely those in the world who would choose it, but I do not expect any of them to find my poll, necessarily. On the other hand, it is the only alternative for a "strict literalist" who can dredge up no scriptural reason for believing otherwise, other than a change of position.

I do see that someone has voted for the second one now. I was hoping that whoever did so would point out the scriptural reason they have found for interpreting the windows non-literally.

Of course it was not literal windows! I do line up to teh second option but I did not think my view was represented. I will post more about the LFH tommorow.

You say "of course" it wasn't literal windows. But many believers who are biologists would say that "of course" God did not literally shape Adam from the clay (the way a potter would), or mold Eve from one of Adam's ribs. The "of course" comes from the fact that we know better. Not from scriptural evidence, but from the evidence of nature - "God's other book". That's the point of this. I think everyone interprets at least some of the Bible as non-literal using extra-biblical knowledge. I think sometimes it is difficult to garner an admission of this.

You say that your view wasn't represented. I can understand that there are positions other than the two versions of strict literalism, and the view of option #3. I hope you will tell me more about your view. I assume you default to a literal interpretation but have some criteria for establishing exceptions apart from scriptural context. What are those criteria? I look forward to hearing more about LFH.

regards,
QED

[QED]

03-08-2003 @ 12:01 PM
Sera Sixwings:

I think it's many things, written by many people, reflecting layers of myth, folk history, codes of conduct, and apologetics.

To be honest, I'm not sure what is implied by saying that Scripture is inspired. I would think that Disney was inspired to create Mickey Mouse, and Mark Twain to write Adventures of Huckleberry Finn. So, it seems to me, calling something inspired leaves such a wide latitude for interpretation that it really isn't saying much at all. It there a Christian-specific meaning of the word?

The Christian-specific meaning of the term inspired is "inspired by God," (as opposed to, for instance, by a muse, by the beauty of nature, or by a personal vision).

A glance at 2 Timothy 3:16 tells us that all scripture is "God-breathed" (or inspired by God, depending the translation). It seems a metaphor. I'm not familiar with the Greek, but in the English, "inspiration" has a different meaning from "respiration". God, apparently "breathed" his message into the minds of the writers, with the understanding that they were to code it into human language in a form that would be understandable to all people. The human authors of the Bible were not writing because they felt moved to do so. Instead, they were moved to write, specifically by God.

As I stated, I do not subscribe to this view, so I checked "other" in my poll, but I hope this will clarify what the Christian-specific meaning of the term "inspiration" is.

[Socratism]

It seems to me that Genesis is "correct" not "literal". I consider it theoretically "possible" that it may connect an outright error, but I have been asking people for years to show me one and so far nobody has come up with anything substantial.

In the case at hand I interpret the phrase "opened the windows of heaven" to mean simply that "it started to rain like crazy", this latter pop expression of mine probably being near to incomprehensible to people reading it 4500 odd years from now.

[QED]

It seems to me that Genesis is "correct" not "literal".

I take it, then, that you voted "other". If I am reading you right, you don't think that the Divine message of the Bible is limited to theological, doctrinal, and ethical points as per 2 Tim 3:16, but that you don't believe that any given passage must be represent a literal truth according to the "plain meaning of the text" (So that, the "windows" can be dismissed as non-literal without scriptural support for such a view).

Although I believe that most theistic evolutionists hold something closer to the view of #3, there is nothing to prevent them from holding your view, so you may find yourself more ready to agree with them than someone who takes either view#1 or view#2 would.

I'd like to know what you have to say (if anything) to those who believe that Gen 1 & 2 are correct (even with regards to narrative history), but are not necessarily literal representations of the creative process, and who also accept scientific findings about the age of the earth and common ancestry of life on earth.

[QED]

I notice that option 2 has garnered two votes. Yet no one has volunteered the scriptural evidence pointing to the non-literal understanding of Gen 7:11. I'd like to hear what those who are voting for this view believes is the scriptural support for interpreting these "windows" non-literally.

Anyone?

[Jason Clark]

I voted for two but I don't believe it needs a scriptural excuse anymore than I need to explain why I didn't step on a puppy when it was "raining cats and dogs."

Yes I am a Genesis literalist.

I don't accept the doctrine of evolution because it is a product of the atheistic world view, ie. the atheistic interpretation of evidence that can point either way.

The same with dating the Earth.

Among the methods of dating are several that can be interpreted for an old Earth and several that can be used to argue for a young Earth.

In the old Earth camp is the obvious, argon argon and potassium argon radioactive decay models.

In the young Earth camp are such things as the salinity of the sea and the decay of the Earths magnetic field.

Click here for more (http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/4005.asp)

[QED]

Jason, thanks for your comments. I would like to add some of my own, and ask for clarification on a point.

03-09-2003 @ 03:28 AM
Jason Clark:

I voted for two but I don't believe it needs a scriptural excuse anymore than I need to explain why I didn't step on a puppy when it was "raining cats and dogs."

You might have done better to have checked "other" in the poll. After all, you don't agree with #2, that one needs a scriptural reason to interpret a Biblical passage non-literally, and you don't agree with #2 that there exists such a reason in the case of Gen 7:11. But I am interested in the reason that you did give for reading Gen 7:11 non-literally. You could have meant two different things by that:
1) That you know ancient Hebrew and know that "windows in the sky" is an idiomatic expression, in the same way that you know modern English and know that "raining cats and dogs" is not meant literally.
or
2) You know that cats and dogs do not fall when it rains, and therefore deduce that the phrase must be non-literal, and in the same way you know from atmospheric science that "windows in the sky" cannot be a true literal description, and therefore interpret it metaphorically.

Could I ask which is your reasoning?

Yes I am a Genesis literalist.

Yet you do interpret Gen 7:11 non-literally. What is your criterion for deviating from a literal reading of Genesis?

I don't accept the doctrine of evolution because it is a product of the atheistic world view, ie. the atheistic interpretation of evidence that can point either way...

I disagree, but I won't address that here, since it isn't germain to the topic.

[Solly]

I voted number 2, but I'm not sure if that clearly gives my views. They can be summed up in the idea that, though I say the sun rises in the morning, that does not mean it literally rises. Just because the Bible uses "windows", does not mean we have to go for literal windows. When we have a downpour, we sometimes say "the heavens opened", but nothing opened at all.

I hold to literal interpretation, but one must bear in mind the type of document being interpreted, and that must take into account the fact that the bible is not a scientific treatise, though it expresses true truth. While my default position is that of a literal 7 day creation, I realised the situation is probably more nuanced than that.

[QED]

03-10-2003 @ 09:26 AM
Solly:

I voted number 2, but I'm not sure if that clearly gives my views. They can be summed up in the idea that, though I say the sun rises in the morning, that does not mean it literally rises. Just because the Bible uses "windows", does not mean we have to go for literal windows. When we have a downpour, we sometimes say "the heavens opened", but nothing opened at all.

Hello. Your explanation seems very similar to Jason Clark's (above). I would like to ask for clarification, since it could mean two different things:
1) You know that "the sun rises" is a non-literal expression in English from your knowledge of English, and you know that "windows in the sky" is an non-literal expression in ancient Hebrew from your knowledge of ancient Hebrew.
Or
2) You know that the sun does not actually rise, so you deduce that the rising of the sun is not a literal event. Likewise you know, from atmospheric science, that there are no windows in the sky, therefore you deduce that the windows are not part of a literal description of the sky.

I hold to literal interpretation, but one must bear in mind the type of document being interpreted, and that must take into account the fact that the bible is not a scientific treatise, though it expresses true truth. While my default position is that of a literal 7 day creation, I realised the situation is probably more nuanced than that.

Since you do seem to allow for cases where Genesis can be interpreted non-literally (by taking into account that the Bible is not a scientific treatise, etc..), could I ask how you decide about any particular story or passage in it? It seems you have formulated the idea this way (if I am not mistaken):

Genesis should be understood literally unless it is known from everyday experience or from science that a literal inerpretation is incorrect.

Does that sum it up?

[Solly]

03-10-2003 @ 12:06 PM
QED:
1) You know that "the sun rises" is a non-literal expression in English from your knowledge of English, and you know that "windows in the sky" is an non-literal expression in ancient Hebrew from your knowledge of ancient Hebrew.
yes
Or
2) You know that the sun does not actually rise, so you deduce that the "rising of the sun" is not a literal [phrase]. Likewise you know, from atmospheric science, that there are no windows in the sky, therefore you deduce that the windows are not part of a literal description of the sky; no, but it might be metaphorical of something else.

Since you do seem to allow for cases where Genesis can be interpreted non-literally (by taking into account that the Bible is not a scientific treatise, etc..), could I ask how you decide about any particular story or passage in it? It seems you have formulated the idea this way (if I am not mistaken):

Genesis should be understood literally unless it is known from everyday experience or from science that a literal inerpretation is incorrect.

Does that sum it up?

No, I don't think so upon reflection. The Bible should be interpreted literally, but recognising that it might make metaphorical statements. Ie, if I say that the Red Socks murdered the opposition, the literal meaning is, they won the game, but it is expressed metaphorically. JP Holding would refer you to Caird's book on imagery in the bible, with regard to the interpretation of passages in matt 24 for instance. There is a group of interpretive skills that one applies to a text to determine its expression and meaning. We don't believe the earth is founded on columns, but we get the literal meaning of what is implied, but that meaning does not come out as a geological statement.
I think we are perhaps using "literal" in different ways.
I also think that the question of "windows in the sky" in particular is rather circular in this discussion. What a 10th century BC Hebrew might understand by that term, and a Creationist in the 21st century, with the likes of Henry Morris to back him up, might not be the same thing, since HM and friends are producing a scientific rationale for creationism, whereas the Hebrew is reading a religious text that does not require the preciseness Creation Science might require.

[Socratism]

I would nominate Solly's post for "post of the day", only adding that some people try to wring more meaning from a short phrase in an ancient text than the author may have intended.

I am not sure whether creationists or naturalists are the more guilty in that regard.

[johnransom]

For those who are interested, Scorates and I will in the near future be debating the relative merits of the 24-hour and literary framework views of the Genesis creation week. Current status of teh debate negotiations can be viewed here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?postid=29778#post29778). I am promoting the framework view.

[QED]

Solly,

I understand you and have no problem with your position. It seems a fine position to hold. But you have been vague on how you discern a passage that is not "literal" in the sense that you describe (being a geological fact, for instance). It truly does seem from the examples that you gave that scientific knowledge contrary to the statement interpreted "literally" is sufficient to judge it not to be a statement that indicates a literal scientific fact. In other words, it seems you are saying that the fact that we know the earth has no foundations is sufficient to determine that the foundations spoken of are not geological. The fact that we know the sky has no windows is enough to determine that the windows Gen 7:11 are not meteorological features.

By extension then, if we accept the findings of geology and evolution, could we not also apply this to determine that recent special creation as described in Genesis are not features of natural history (but instead are metaphors for Personal Creation, or something else)?

[Sheepdog]

wow, 55% other. not a good poll that the majority don't pick the other allowed options.

then again, i see that you had loaded the poll to suit your purposes (not that this is wrong or anything, just making sure i understand whats going on)

i vote other, because, i don't know. based on my studies in the Bible, and in science, i have come to the conclusion that it is unwise for me to come to a conclusion until i can study this issue.

of course, i tend towards Old Earth Creationism, for a few reasons:
1. i doubt the anctient Hebrew would have comprehended a multi-million/billion year age. hence there may be some merit to the idea that the ages of the universe are packed up metaphorically into "days."
2. the scientific data i have seen indicates an old earth, old universe. of course, this knowledge of mine is not exhaustive, and i am not going to make the same idiotic fallacies i often see evolutionists make (i.e. everyone knows universe is billions of yeas old [bandwagon fallacy]; if you don't believe it you are a backwards fundy [poisoning the well]; most scientists agree that that is true [unspecified authorities; also appeal to questionable authority, as not all scientists are experts in studies relavent to said theories])
3. Telescoping geneolgies make it possible that the human race (and thus the Earth as well) much older than 6000 years. some YECists would limit this to 20,000 years, but i see not justification for the 20K limit.

of course, the idea that all death originated from Adam is a big reason why i don't adopt OEC all the way. however, i have to wonder if the Bible refers to physical death or spiritual death. Paul seems to make an argument contrasting "death" with eternal life. so, it does seem probable he means spiritual death (that is, eternal hell).

[QED]

You are right. The first two options (as I explained in the OP) are almost untenable as they are stated, but I have seen this position claimed, especially by those who are quick to criticize as "non-Biblical" those Christians who embrace science.

I thought it would be interesting to get this right out on the table. It's good to realize that most Christians do rely on extrabiblical knowledge in order to interpret the scriptures. If it's good enough for the "windows" in the sky (or the motion of the heavenly bodies, etc...) it may just be good enough for "death came with Adam's sin", "formed from clay", or "made from the rib of a sleeping Adam"... How about this one: "formed me in the womb"? (also illustrates proximate vs ultimate cause - important for understanding theistic evolution).

[Sheepdog]

i'd be cautious about relying on human knowledge to interpret scripture, as Paul condemns such knowledge in 1 Corinthians 2 (note he is not condemning the aquistion of wisdom or knowledge, but instead doing so apart form the wisdom of God). if anything, i'd say my primary source of interpretation stems from humbly seeking wisdom from God, through the Spirit. In Proverbs 8, Wisdom is personified as telling people to come to her and gain wisdom. who better to interpret God's word than God Himself?

regarding theistic evolution: the Theory of Evolution is where i draw the line. i have seen several valid objections aganst Darwinian Evolution, including what i think is the strongest, Irreducable Complexity. what science has shown is that there are systems in organisms that require multiple parts to function. it is said to be irreducable when a system can only function in a useful way if none of its parts are taken away. See Behe's Darwin's Black Box for details. the essential systems cannot be accounted for by gradual change evolution, because their very nature requires a sudden, immense change; even in probabalistic terms. this sudden change had not been accounted for by Evolutionary Theory, nor can it be (other than by whimsical presumptions not established by evidence).

one may argue that it is possible that such mutations could occur over time, and the systems are merely inactive until all components are developed. however, this is unlikely, as inactive parts are unnecessary until they are useful, and unnecssary parts tend to be weeded out by natural selection over time, not allowed to continue (or so the theories go).

furthermore, multiple mutations would have to occure, all of which being either beneficial or inane. most mutations have been shown to be harmful, not beneficial. so it seems extraordinarily improbable that multiple, immediate mutations that are all nonharmful could ever occure, much less drive evolution from pre-life to complex organisms.

[Socratism]

Sheepdog,

Your problem is that you don't know how science works.

[QED]

03-10-2003 @ 07:55 PM
Sheepdog:

i'd be cautious about relying on human knowledge to interpret scripture, as Paul condemns such knowledge in 1 Corinthians 2 (note he is not condemning the aquistion of wisdom or knowledge, but instead doing so apart form the wisdom of God).

Perhaps some caution is in order when using human knowledge to interpret scripture, but doing so is unavoidable. Consider:

1) Human knowledge of human language: necessary to read
2) Human knowledge of science: necessary to understand that some language describing nature or natural history is figurative
(examples: "windows of heaven", "foundations of earth", "stopping the sun and moon in the sky", "dome of heaven", others?!?)
3) Other human tools of interpretation, such as harmonization (How did Judas die?)

if anything, i'd say my primary source of interpretation stems from humbly seeking wisdom from God, through the Spirit.

All well & good. But if that Spirit guides you to a forum where scientific theories about life are frequently discussed from a range of perspectives, don't be too quick to run from perspectives that would require you to change your interpretation of the Bible!

In Proverbs 8, Wisdom is personified as telling people to come to her and gain wisdom. who better to interpret God's word than God Himself?

Who better? Well, humans will be less successful, but according to my understanding of theology it will be humans who have to dedicate themselves to the enterprise in order to benefit from scripture. You must associate meaning with the words before you can hope to use them to guide your spiritual life.

regarding theistic evolution: the Theory of Evolution is where i draw the line. i have seen several valid objections aganst Darwinian Evolution, including what i think is the strongest, Irreducable Complexity. what science has shown is that there are systems in organisms that require multiple parts to function. it is said to be irreducable when a system can only function in a useful way if none of its parts are taken away. See Behe's Darwin's Black Box for details. the essential systems cannot be accounted for by gradual change evolution, because their very nature requires a sudden, immense change; even in probabalistic terms. this sudden change had not been accounted for by Evolutionary Theory, nor can it be (other than by whimsical presumptions not established by evidence).

one may argue that it is possible that such mutations could occur over time, and the systems are merely inactive until all components are developed. however, this is unlikely, as inactive parts are unnecessary until they are useful, and unnecssary parts tend to be weeded out by natural selection over time, not allowed to continue (or so the theories go).

furthermore, multiple mutations would have to occure, all of which being either beneficial or inane. most mutations have been shown to be harmful, not beneficial. so it seems extraordinarily improbable that multiple, immediate mutations that are all nonharmful could ever occure, much less drive evolution from pre-life to complex organisms.

I'm glad to see that your objections to evolution do not rest solely on a prior commitment to a particular interpretation of scripture. If you continue to seek, you may learn that there are some mistakes in your understanding of evolution, and that you may well be rejecting it without due cause. For instance: you say that most mutations are harmful. The fact is that most are neutral. Of those which are not neutral, most are harmful. But for evolution to work, only some must be beneficial. Natural selection will do the real work. You also seem to believe Behe when he claims that complex systems must have fallen into piece in their current, complex forms (as they could not work without their essential pieces.) Most biologists believe he is mistaken about that. Think of an arch made of stone or bricks. The top of the arch cannot stay up without all of the bricks in place. But that doesn't mean the builders put them all in at once. They added them one by one, step by step. Similar explanations have been shown to be likely in the case of several complex biochemical mechanisms in living cells. Perhaps Behe has jumped to a conclusion not warranted by the evidence. You may want to look at the strong evidence for common descent, and for the power of neodarwinian evolution in general, before you draw your final conclusion about Behe's hypothesis.

Nice chatting!

[Sheepdog]

03-10-2003 @ 05:58 PM
Socratism:

Sheepdog,

Your problem is that you don't know how science works.

and this is in response to, what?

actually, since i have taken a few university level, laboratory classes dealing with science, yes i do know how science works. yes, that does not make me an expert in any regard. nevertheless, i understand the scientific method about as well as an average Engineering Major should.

if you can explain to me in detail why you came to the conclusion you did (so i can better grasp where you are coming from), i can respond better. as it is, that is an empty assertion that can as easily be applied to you.

[Socrates]

If QED knows of anyone who DENIES that there are non-literal passages of the Bible, he must share this information with us! Or is he more interested in setting up a straw man (most likely)?

As for that silly "Windows of heaven" claim, the Bible clearly uses this idiomatically in a number of places, so it IS like "raining cats and dogs". And I've explained to misotheists like Robyn Banx and Alward that I DO take the word "sunset" literally -- it is perfectly valid physics to choose the Earth as a convenient reference frame. When Galileo was asked, in the apocryphal account, "Does the Earth move?", he should have replied, "Relative to what?".

But when it comes to the historical events of Genesis 1-11, the rest of the Bible interprets them as real history. And to destroy QED's false dichotomy between faith/morals and facts/history, they are often intertwined. E.g.

the Fourth Commandment relates the days of the working week and days of rest to the six days of creation and God's rest on the seventh (Ex. 20:8-11). I.e. the "moral" aspect, the Sabbath command to the Israelites, was based on the what God had done in Creation Week. This also indicated that the days were the same length, otherwise the whole reasoning collapses.
Jesus taught on marriage (morality) by referring to the origin of marriage, and directly cites Genesis 1:27 and 2:24 as real history (Mt. 19:3-6, Mark 10:6-9). This blows away any liberal nonsense like JEDP, and note that Jesus said they were there "from the beginning of creation" not billions of years later.
Jesus related the Flood judgment (history) with His second Coming (doctrine) in Luke 17:26-27).
Paul taught about the role of women in church (moral/faith issue) by basing it on the history that Adam was created before Eve and that Eve was deceived and Adam was not (1 Tim. 2:12-14).
Also, QED sets up another straw man by implying that creationists deny beneficial motations. We do NOT. We point out that even those ones actually result from LOSS of information, e.g. fish in caves with shrivelled eyes, beetles on windswept islands lacking wings. Alas, QED is more interested in swallowing the pronouncements of rabid atheists who lead in the field of evolutionary theorizing than the written Word of the infallible God.

[Socrates]

Sheepdog:

then again, i see that you had loaded the poll to suit your purposes (not that this is wrong or anything, just making sure i understand whats going on)Probably right, knowing QED who joins forces with known God-haters against the Bible.

i vote other, because, i don't know. based on my studies in the Bible, and in science, i have come to the conclusion that it is unwise for me to come to a conclusion until i can study this issue.

of course, i tend towards Old Earth Creationism, for a few reasons:
1. i doubt the anctient Hebrew would have comprehended a multi-million/billion year age. hence there may be some merit to the idea that the ages of the universe are packed up metaphorically into "days."
Disappointing to see a hint of "ancient people were stupid" AKA chronological snobbery. Actually, AiG has long pointed out that there were plenty of other words that God could have used if He had wanted to teach long periods of time, e.g. olam, ad. God could also have used phrases like ‘x myriad myriad years ago’ to teach ages of hundreds of millions of years. For a less precise indication of vast ages, God could have compared the years to the number of sand grains or stars. Yet God did not use any of these — rather, He emphasized literal days.
2. the scientific data i have seen indicates an old earth, old universe. of course, this knowledge of mine is not exhaustive, and i am not going to make the same idiotic fallacies i often see evolutionists make (i.e. everyone knows universe is billions of yeas old [bandwagon fallacy]; if you don't believe it you are a backwards fundy [poisoning the well]; most scientists agree that that is true [unspecified authorities; also appeal to questionable authority, as not all scientists are experts in studies relavent to said theories])Exactly right :thumb:. So wouldn't it be better to trust what God says rather than fallible scientists?
3. Telescoping geneolgies make it possible that the human race (and thus the Earth as well) much older than 6000 years. some YECists would limit this to 20,000 years, but i see not justification for the 20K limit.The opposite is true -- there is no reason IN THE TEXT for any gaps in the very tightly written chronologies in Genesis 5 and 11. But even if there were, given the average age at begetting in Genesis 11, even 100 missing names would not be even close to 10,000 years. I explained this in Post#29195 in the thread, 'a question or two for "J.P. Holding"'
of course, the idea that all death originated from Adam is a big reason why i don't adopt OEC all the way. however, i have to wonder if the Bible refers to physical death or spiritual death. Paul seems to make an argument contrasting "death" with eternal life. so, it does seem probable he means spiritual death (that is, eternal hell).No, there MUST be a physical death component. That's why Adam was cursed with returning to the dust from which he was made. And Paul contrasts Adam's death with the resurrection of the Last Adam (1 Cor. 15:21-22, cf. 26,45). So as the Resurrection was indisputably physical, the death that Adam brought must likewise be physical.

You have hit upon a gaping whole in all attempts to compromise with billions of years. Theistic evolutionists have an even worse problem, because they claim, in effect, that God USED death, the "last enemy", to bring about a "very good" creation which was really full to the brim of death, disease and suffering.

[Sheepdog]

03-10-2003 @ 06:44 PM
QED:



Perhaps some caution is in order when using human knowledge to interpret scripture, but doing so is unavoidable. Consider:

1) Human knowledge of human language: necessary to read
2) Human knowledge of science: necessary to understand that some language describing nature or natural history is figurative
(examples: "windows of heaven", "foundations of earth", "stopping the sun and moon in the sky", "dome of heaven", others?!?)
3) Other human tools of interpretation, such as harmonization (How did Judas die?)

to my knowledge i was not setting up a false dilemma. as you illustrate some human knowledge is necessary (i'd omit #2 form your list, simply because many layChristians, especially children, have not studied much science, so we ought not discount them. i'd possibly omit #3 as well, for the same reason)


All well & good. But if that Spirit guides you to a forum where scientific theories about life are frequently discussed from a range of perspectives, don't be too quick to run from perspectives that would require you to change your interpretation of the Bible!

which i have no argument against, nor would i intend to. i have sought the Lord in prayer over a Bible issue, and then "stumbled on" written essays that assited my learning on the subject.

Who better? Well, humans will be less successful, but according to my understanding of theology it will be humans who have to dedicate themselves to the enterprise in order to benefit from scripture. You must associate meaning with the words before you can hope to use them to guide your spiritual life.

i'll concede as i did above. however, if i may add, i had presuppositions in view when i cautioned against human wisdom. for example, if we come to Scripture presuming naturalism is true, we won't get much out of it that is meaningful. or, Western literalism (which i believe Holding has done a decent job showing that one ought to be careful in applying our mindsets to the writings of Ancient Near Eastern writers).

I'm glad to see that your objections to evolution do not rest solely on a prior commitment to a particular interpretation of scripture.

thank you. as a person who believes God gave us brains for a reason (did you see the Galileo quote i had at one time?), i take logic, science, history, intelectual integrity, etc. very seriously.

If you continue to seek, you may learn that there are some mistakes in your understanding of evolution, and that you may well be rejecting it without due cause.

it is possible. i am a bit rusty to the Evolution-Creation debate, and i do desire to study the issue more in the near future. i am focusing more on theology and doctrine now, so we shall see.

For instance: you say that most mutations are harmful. The fact is that most are neutral. Of those which are not neutral, most are harmful. But for evolution to work, only some must be beneficial. Natural selection will do the real work.

if Irreducable Complexity is true, more than just "some" mutations need to be beneficial. in order for an irreducably complex system to develop gradually, some component producing mutations must occur that serve no immediate benefit to the species. since useless "parts" of an organism can actually become hindering (at the very least serve as an extra budren to the organism), it should be expected that these components will tend to be weeded out by natural selection.

think about it, setting aside vestigial(sp?) organs (which used to serve a purpose but have since diminished-- or so scientists tell us), how many useless parts can you identify within or on your body?

You also seem to believe Behe when he claims that complex systems must have fallen into piece in their current, complex forms (as they could not work without their essential pieces.) Most biologists believe he is mistaken about that.

you are appealling to unspecifed authorities. i doubt, "most scholars believe James the brother of Jesus wore a pink tutu," would be a very compelling statement to you. so, pending the time that i can get around to study this topic, please don't blame me for not taking your word for it. especially since, i'd question how many of these biologists are qualified as experts specifically in the "study" of evolution (i would not be suprized if the majority would be more concerned about present day organisms and such).

Think of an arch made of stone or bricks. The top of the arch cannot stay up without all of the bricks in place. But that doesn't mean the builders put them all in at once. They added them one by one, step by step.

this would be a bit of a stretch as an analogy, since an arch of bricks would have to be constructed by an intelligent agents (human(s)), and many construction aspects would have to be planned out (i.e. work platforms, structural supports). now i admit no analogy is perfect dead on, but this was is too weak to be of use.

Similar explanations have been shown to be likely in the case of several complex biochemical mechanisms in living cells.

well, based on my observations of a few responses to Behe i've seen (i admit that i have only seena few, so that is certainly not comprehensive), the evolutionists in question appeal to questionable assertions lacking evidence to respond. in essence, what all i have seen has been evoking "evolution of the gaps," or presuming that, "though we have no clue how it happened, by golly evolution had to have been behind it."

Perhaps Behe has jumped to a conclusion not warranted by the evidence. You may want to look at the strong evidence for common descent, and for the power of neodarwinian evolution in general, before you draw your final conclusion about Behe's hypothesis.

i would like to do that, eventually. and of course, i will also look at the Intelligent Designists and Creationists' critiques of them...

take care

[Sheepdog]

03-10-2003 @ 10:50 PM
Socrates:


of course, i tend towards Old Earth Creationism, for a few reasons:
1. i doubt the anctient Hebrew would have comprehended a multi-million/billion year age. hence there may be some merit to the idea that the ages of the universe are packed up metaphorically into "days."
Disappointing to see a hint of "ancient people were stupid" AKA chronological snobbery.

i don't doubt that the ancients were quite intelligent. but speaking to them in terms of billions of years? i don't even think modern people can really comprehend how long a million years is, other than in abstract terms.

Actually, AiG has long pointed out that there were plenty of other words that God could have used if He had wanted to teach long periods of time, e.g. olam, ad. God could also have used phrases like ‘x myriad myriad years ago’ to teach ages of hundreds of millions of years. For a less precise indication of vast ages, God could have compared the years to the number of sand grains or stars. Yet God did not use any of these...

He easily could have. but remember, the OEC position has to presume that God is being metophorical here.

— rather, He emphasized literal days.

whether they are indeed literal is a matter of opinion. it may be true, but i haven't seen conclusively why it indeed is.

as an aside, i am curious, shall we also accept there are literal pillars the Earth is on?

2. the scientific data i have seen indicates an old earth, old universe. of course, this knowledge of mine is not exhaustive, and i am not going to make the same idiotic fallacies i often see evolutionists make (i.e. everyone knows universe is billions of yeas old [bandwagon fallacy]; if you don't believe it you are a backwards fundy [poisoning the well]; most scientists agree that that is true [unspecified authorities; also appeal to questionable authority, as not all scientists are experts in studies relavent to said theories])Exactly right :thumb:. So wouldn't it be better to trust what God says rather than fallible scientists?

well, yeah. unfortunately for your case, i see no need to set the Bible and science against each other.

3. Telescoping geneolgies make it possible that the human race (and thus the Earth as well) much older than 6000 years. some YECists would limit this to 20,000 years, but i see not justification for the 20K limit.The opposite is true -- there is no reason IN THE TEXT for any gaps in the very tightly written chronologies in Genesis 5 and 11.

then again, they were written to be memorized, correct?

But even if there were, given the average age at begetting in Genesis 11, even 100 missing names would not be even close to 10,000 years.

and if granted the presupposition that the geneologies are telescoped, i'd conjecture their would be a lot more than a 100 names omitted...

of course, the idea that all death originated from Adam is a big reason why i don't adopt OEC all the way. however, i have to wonder if the Bible refers to physical death or spiritual death. Paul seems to make an argument contrasting "death" with eternal life. so, it does seem probable he means spiritual death (that is, eternal hell).No, there MUST be a physical death component. That's why Adam was cursed with returning to the dust from which he was made.

have you ever considered the fact that the Tree of Life was also put into the Garden? (Gen. 2:9). Indeed, there was no command to not eat from this tree. in Gen. 3:22 God admitted they would live forever had they ate from the Tree of Life. so, if physical death was introduced when Adam ate from the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil, why the addition of the Tree of Life?

furthermore, the command to multiply and fill the earth was made prior to the fall (1:28). had their been no death and the first couple mulitplied endlessly, how could the earth had contained the multiudes of offspring that would be produced?

in 2:16, Adam is granted the fruit of the garden to eat. don't the plant cells in fruit die when consumed (or prior to)?

And Paul contrasts Adam's death with the resurrection of the Last Adam (1 Cor. 15:21-22, cf. 26,45). So as the Resurrection was indisputably physical, the death that Adam brought must likewise be physical.

hmm. in light of above this is technically true. but if anything, Adam's physical death was brought about by his negligence (and after the fall, inability) of eating form the Tree of Life.

You have hit upon a gaping whole in all attempts to compromise with billions of years.

persuming, of course that their even is a compromise in the first place.

Theistic evolutionists have an even worse problem, because they claim, in effect, that God USED death, the "last enemy", to bring about a "very good" creation which was really full to the brim of death, disease and suffering.

not to mention that a critical analysis of the "evidence" for evolution would find it severly lacking. (i would be suprized anyways if they didn't respond to your argument here by noting that even after the fall death, "the last enemy," is used for an ultimate good [i.e. martyrs for the Christian faith]).

[QED]

03-11-2003 @ 03:33 AM
Socrates:

If QED knows of anyone who DENIES that there are non-literal passages of the Bible, he must share this information with us! Or is he more interested in setting up a straw man (most likely)?

I do not know such a person, nor have I claimed to. Maybe you are the one building a straw man. I do know people who claim that it is incorrect to use extrabiblical knowledge (e.g. science) as an exegetical tool, when the result is that a passage is deemed non-literal without a scriptural basis. This thread is devoted to exposing the difficulties of that position.

As for that silly "Windows of heaven" claim, the Bible clearly uses this idiomatically in a number of places, so it IS like "raining cats and dogs".
1) I believe this is untrue. Gen 8:2 has a recap of this verse. Can you find any other place in the Bible where the term is used this way?
2) You beg the question. You assume it to be an idiomatic expression (which it may well be), but you don't give any reason that you believe it to be one. To paraphrase yourself, are you "kneeling at the altar of materialistic atmospheric science"?
3) I never said the phrase was not like the phrase "raining cat's and dogs." I just ask how you come to know that it is, and not a literal representation of where rain might come from.

But when it comes to the historical events of Genesis 1-11, the rest of the Bible interprets them as real history. And to destroy QED's false dichotomy between faith/morals and facts/history, they are often intertwined. E.g.

the Fourth Commandment relates the days of the working week and days of rest to the six days of creation and God's rest on the seventh (Ex. 20:8-11). I.e. the "moral" aspect, the Sabbath command to the Israelites, was based on the what God had done in Creation Week. This also indicated that the days were the same length, otherwise the whole reasoning collapses.

Sabbaths of weeks and years are also presented as holy in the Bible, yet this does not change our interpretation to the Sabbath of the creation week as literal weeks or literal years. Sabbath has a flexible meaning within the OT, yet the whole "reasoning" doesn't collapse. You are assuming this passage in Exodus is a reasoning for a hallowed sabbath, and not an emphatic way of expressing the necessity of it.


Jesus taught on marriage (morality) by referring to the origin of marriage, and directly cites Genesis 1:27 and 2:24 as real history (Mt. 19:3-6, Mark 10:6-9). This blows away any liberal nonsense like JEDP, and note that Jesus said they were there "from the beginning of creation" not billions of years later.

1) Under theistic evolution, God created people male and female, so the point is not lost in the switch.
2) Jesus cites Gen 1:27 & 2:24 without affirming that they are literal history any more than I cite "Big Brother" as being a literal character when I mention the name.
3) If Jesus said that they (male & female) were there "from the beginning of creation" not billions of years and we hope to justify tossing out science on the basis of this, then we must also toss out the OT, because the OT specifically says that Adam was created first (before Eve), and that this was not at the beginning of creation, but on the sixth day of the creation week.

Jesus related the Flood judgment (history) with His second Coming (doctrine) in Luke 17:26-27).

And I relate Big Brother with Total Information Awareness, though only one of these is a real, factual thing.

Paul taught about the role of women in church (moral/faith issue) by basing it on the history that Adam was created before Eve and that Eve was deceived and Adam was not (1 Tim. 2:12-14).

1) Paul != Jesus
2) There is no possible logical connection between Paul's doctrine about women and the church and ancient history, therefore we must consider the possibility that this was an emphatic, not a reasoning statement.

Also, QED sets up another straw man by implying that creationists deny beneficial motations.

Malarkey! Obviously at least some of you do deny that beneficial mutations are common (and rightly so). I was replying to this: "furthermore, multiple mutations would have to occure, all of which being either beneficial or inane. "

Who is setting up a straw man??

Alas, QED is more interested in swallowing the pronouncements of rabid atheists who lead in the field of evolutionary theorizing than the written Word of the infallible God.

Here we have the reason for the thread. Socrates has decided that his interpretive view of the Bible (YEC) is equivalent to the "written Word of the infallible God." This is my beef. YEC is a human invention - a human interpretation of the Bible. It does not get immunity from falsification or criticism on the basis of Divine infallability. Socrates, Ham, Gish, & Morris are all fallible humans. Don't let them convince you otherwise.

P.S. "rabid" atheists are only one constituent of the many scientists who advance the theory of evolution. Don't be decieved by the rhetoric you hear about them.

I will reply to your next post, Socrates, when I have more time.

[Solly]

QED

I have taken it as read that the reference to "windows in the sky" in Gen 7.11 is used in reference to the canopy layer as espoused by Creation scientists. That is the position I am commenting on, re the poll. Pardon me if I have misunderstodd the significance of the verse in ref to this poll.
But if it does have reference to such a theory, then how do we tackle Isa 24.18 And it shall come to pass, [that] he who fleeth from the noise of the fear shall fall into the pit; and he that cometh up out of the midst of the pit shall be taken in the snare: for the windows from on high are open, and the foundations of the earth do shake. which is post deluge?
Since I don't expect the bible to give me information in the form that would be more acceptable in a scientific journal, (any more than I do in normal conversation, or reading), then I am not obliged to assume that it is a precise and verifiable scientific statement. Yes, my knowledge of the world as it is will have an effect upon that understanding; yes, the Hebrews did not, perhaps, have that same understanding. But God does, and yet he still chooses to use metaphor and "sayings" to express what is humanly significant, rather than what is scientifically appropriate. I think your average hebrew would recognise that rain comes from clouds though, and yet could, just as we now do, speak of the heavens opening.

[Socratism]

03-11-2003 @ 07:07 AM
QED:



Socrates has decided that his interpretive view of the Bible (YEC) is equivalent to the "written Word of the infallible God." This is my beef. YEC is a human invention - a human interpretation of the Bible. It does not get immunity from falsification or criticism on the basis of Divine infallability. Socrates, Ham, Gish, & Morris are all fallible humans. Don't let them convince you otherwise.

P.S. "rabid" atheists are only one constituent of the many scientists who advance the theory of evolution. Don't be decieved by the rhetoric you hear about them.



I think you are correct in pointing out that YECers are only fallible human beings. Do you agree that this is also true of evolutionary scientists?

With regard to atheists it is not rhetoric that the vast majority of biologists in the National Academy are of that persuasion.

[Jimmy Higgins]

03-11-2003 @ 08:20 AM
Socratism:
With regard to atheists it is not rhetoric that the vast majority of biologists in the National Academy are of that persuasion. Can this be backed up with a few statistics? I find it hard to believe, although I could certainly be wrong.

[Jimmy Higgins]

03-10-2003 @ 01:36 PM
Sheepdog:
2. the scientific data i have seen indicates an old earth, old universe. of course, this knowledge of mine is not exhaustive, and i am not going to make the same idiotic fallacies i often see evolutionists make (i.e. everyone knows universe is billions of yeas old [bandwagon fallacy]; if you don't believe it you are a backwards fundy [poisoning the well]; most scientists agree that that is true [unspecified authorities; also appeal to questionable authority, as not all scientists are experts in studies relavent to said theories])
If I may, the age of the universe is getting tighter and tighter every year. Information compiled from the GMAP just last year, and released last month indicates that the universe is 13.7 billion years old with a given 1 percent (or 0.137 billion years) error. That is good accuracy. Check out the simple page on this here (http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/m_mm/mr_age.html).

For a much more thorough approach, you can get into the messy details check out the papers here. (http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/m_mm/pub_papers/firstyear.html)

[QED]

Solly,

This thread is not (as you might suspect) a critique of "inerrancy" in any general sense. It is, perhaps, a critique of the notions of literalistic inerrancy that lead some to follow the chain of logic:

The Bible says that creation was recent, and that "kinds" were separately created. The Bible never errs. If creation was not recent and the proximate cause of evolution was responsible for the diversity of life, then the Bible must be in error. Therefore geology, paleontology, and biology must be wrong.

Obviously, it is not so simple. You do not conclude from your premise that the Bible never errs, that atmospheric science is wrong (about the lack of windows in the sky, for instance). I'm just opening the possibility that under the same view of inerrancy that allows for metaphorical language in Gen 7, recent, special creation is not necessary based on Gen 1.

However, the usual arguments for inerrancy (when boiled down to their basics) do not rule out the possibility that Gen 1 actually errs as an historical account. Christians who agree with the 4th option listed may take this view.

[Solly]

03-11-2003 @ 02:58 PM QED:

Solly,

This thread is not (as you might suspect) a critique of "inerrancy" in any general sense.

I didn't think that. I'm just popping in here cos I saw the poll; I don't usually hang out in the science forum

It is, perhaps, a critique of the notions of literalistic inerrancy that lead some to follow the chain of logic:

The Bible says that creation was recent, and that "kinds" were separately created. The Bible never errs. (If creation was not recent and the proximate cause of evolution was responsible for the diversity of life, then the Bible must be in error.) Therefore the findings of geology, paleontology, and biology must in some way be wrong.

my edit

Obviously, it is not so simple. You do not conclude from your premise that the Bible never errs, that atmospheric science is wrong (about the lack of windows in the sky, for instance). I'm just opening the possibility that under the same view of inerrancy that allows for metaphorical language in Gen 7, recent, special creation is not necessary based on Gen 1.

My view of special creation is informed by Heb 11.3. Christians aren't required to become scientists to uphold their views.
However, within that and following your suggestion here, one could hold that there is room for the development of scientific knowledge that expands our view of the universe, without necessarily contradicting the Biblical record.

However, the usual arguments for inerrancy - which are? Don't you mean limited inerrancy? (when boiled down to their basics) do not rule out the possibility that Gen 1 actually errs as an historical account. Christians who agree with the 4th option listed may take this view.

I think I would disagree with the logic followed here, unless one postulates limited inerrancy, perhaps of the kind that someone like CS Lewis held to, or in recent times, McKim; but that raises as many problems, because then you have to decide which bits aren't inerrant (ie, reflect cultural understanding of the time).
I am not qualified to speak for either side on the scientific issues, but as someone who is a Christian, and preaches from the bible, my trust in the word has grown the more I look into it, and that is because I trust the author. That's rather an unassailable position, and certainly something skeptics won't like. But then, I was a skeptic once.

[Socratism]

03-11-2003 @ 09:17 AM
Jimmy Higgins:

Can this be backed up with a few statistics? I find it hard to believe, although I could certainly be wrong.

Why so hard to believe when no self respecting biologist denies that evolution is true or that life can appear naturally given enough time and the proper conditions?

Since nobody has ever seen God why should anyone believe that such a being exists?

'Leading scientists still reject God', Nature 394(6691):313, 23 July 1998

[QED]

03-11-2003 @ 04:01 AM
Sheepdog:



to my knowledge i was not setting up a false dilemma. as you illustrate some human knowledge is necessary (i'd omit #2 form your list, simply because many layChristians, especially children, have not studied much science, so we ought not discount them. i'd possibly omit #3 as well, for the same reason)

I would not omit either. Lay Christians and children are perfectly capable of making sense enough out of the plan of salvation, at least with the help of a theologically trained minister. They are unlikely to begin their understanding of the Bible by trying to wring explanations of natural history out of it or by trying to resolve apparent contradictions. They will need to be prepared with certain scriptural and extra-biblical human knowledge when they do attempt these things. Else, they might wind up thinking the Bible has told them that the earth rests on pillars, or that Satan and God were working together on the issue of David's census.



i'll concede as i did above. however, if i may add, i had presuppositions in view when i cautioned against human wisdom. for example, if we come to Scripture presuming naturalism is true, we won't get much out of it that is meaningful.

Fair enough. I should point out that only philosophical naturalism can be true or false,so I assume that it is this variety you mean when you say "naturalism". All scientists, including Newton and various others who pre-dated Darwin operate under the methodological program of naturalism.


thank you. as a person who believes God gave us brains for a reason (did you see the Galileo quote i had at one time?), i take logic, science, history, intelectual integrity, etc. very seriously.

This is commendable.

it is possible. i am a bit rusty to the Evolution-Creation debate, and i do desire to study the issue more in the near future. i am focusing more on theology and doctrine now, so we shall see.

Again, commendable.


if Irreducable Complexity is true, more than just "some" mutations need to be beneficial. in order for an irreducably complex system to develop gradually, some component producing mutations must occur that serve no immediate benefit to the species.

I think that investigation will fail to show that Irreducible Complexity (as it is presented here) is true.

since useless "parts" of an organism can actually become hindering (at the very least serve as an extra budren to the organism), it should be expected that these components will tend to be weeded out by natural selection.

So far, there is no system known that must have depended on useless parts for its assembly by evolution.


you are appealling to unspecifed authorities. i doubt, "most scholars believe James the brother of Jesus wore a pink tutu," would be a very compelling statement to you. so, pending the time that i can get around to study this topic, please don't blame me for not taking your word for it.

I don't expect you to take my word for it. I appeal to those authorities only to show that Behe has failed to convince those who have the scientific knowledge to fully analyze his case - and that therefore you and I should not be quick to follow Behe before finding out why these other scientists have not.


especially since, i'd question how many of these biologists are qualified as experts specifically in the "study" of evolution (i would not be suprized if the majority would be more concerned about present day organisms and such).

Leaving aside the fact that much of evolutionary science is intimately connected to the development and behavior of present-day organisms, I grant you that the specific study of phylogenetic history is confined to a subset of biologists (along with their paleontologist colleagues).


this would be a bit of a stretch as an analogy, since an arch of bricks would have to be constructed by an intelligent agents (human(s)), and many construction aspects would have to be planned out (i.e. work platforms, structural supports). now i admit no analogy is perfect dead on, but this was is too weak to be of use.

The point is that a complex structure that requires certain parts to be in place in order to function can be achieved step by step. After that, yes the analogy breaks down, but it has served its purpose as a counterexample. If we want to extend it, we would have to consider that mechnanisms used for "scaffolding" in a cell might well be biochemical features that were useful to the cell in some other way before the development of the system in question.


well, based on my observations of a few responses to Behe i've seen (i admit that i have only seena few, so that is certainly not comprehensive), the evolutionists in question appeal to questionable assertions lacking evidence to respond. in essence, what all i have seen has been evoking "evolution of the gaps," or presuming that, "though we have no clue how it happened, by golly evolution had to have been behind it."

Well, consider what these guys are responding to. It is the equivalent of "we don't know the precise evolutionary pathway, and it looks difficult to achieve, therefore it could not have happened by evolution." The "gaps" tend to be in explanations of this or that complex biochemical feature. The question is, should we a) explore the gaps, looking for novel mechanisms that produce them, b) assume that they arose through evolution and ignore them or c) assume that they could not have arisen from evolution and conclude "design". I think that most biologists will answer "a)". We may never quite get to the nuts and bolts of every complex biochemical system, but much work has been done on exploring them, and many answers have come back. Systems like the Krebs cycle, and fetal hemoglobin are much better understood now as a result of this attitude. It turns out that the "gaps" would have been appropriately filled by some type of evolutionary explanation in those cases, but without doing the exploring, we could not have hoped to gain anything close to a precise explanation.

The evidence of common descent, and the power of natural selection to bring about novelty is enough to allay fears that the next chemical we stumble upon will be inexplicable under a neo-darwinian context.

i would like to do that, eventually. and of course, i will also look at the Intelligent Designists and Creationists' critiques of them...
take care

Good. I've kept the discussion of this matter very vague (on purpose) in this thread, but I, and others here, are here to help answer specific questions that might arise when you undertake this. Best wishes.

[Jimmy Higgins]

03-11-2003 @ 11:10 AM
Socratism:
Why so hard to believe when no self respecting biologist denies that evolution is true or that life can appear naturally given enough time and the proper conditions?

Since nobody has ever seen God why should anyone believe that such a being exists? Well, my aunt is a PhD in a biology field, and she is a theist. I went to a college taught by Brothers who were all obviously theists and also believed in evolution.

I repeat a request for some statistics. I just find it hard to believe, at least from my experience.

[Socratism]

03-11-2003 @ 11:15 AM
Jimmy Higgins:

Well, my aunt is a PhD in a biology field, and she is a theist. I went to a college taught by Brothers who were all obviously theists and also believed in evolution.

I repeat a request for some statistics. I just find it hard to believe, at least from my experience.

'Leading scientists still reject God', Nature 394(6691):313, 23 July 1998

[QED]

03-11-2003 @ 03:22 PM
Solly:

[quote]I didn't think that. I'm just popping in here cos I saw the poll; I don't usually hang out in the science forum

K. Just wanted to be clear on that.

my edit

Your edition is acceptible on the point of "findings", but some way is not adequate. In almost every conceivable way is closer to it.

My view of special creation is informed by Heb 11.3. Christians aren't required to become scientists to uphold their views.
However, within that and following your suggestion here, one could hold that there is room for the development of scientific knowledge that expands our view of the universe, without necessarily contradicting the Biblical record.

Doesn't sound like "Special Creation" to me (in the YEC or OEC sense). Sounds like just good-old-fashioned "Creation".

However, the usual arguments for inerrancy - which are? Don't you mean limited inerrancy?

Actually, I believe that the usual arguments for inerrancy (no matter what variation of the proposition they are used to defend)... "(when boiled down to their basics) do not rule out the possibility that Gen 1 actually errs as an historical account. Christians who agree with the 4th option listed may take this view."

I think I would disagree with the logic followed here, unless one postulates limited inerrancy, perhaps of the kind that someone like CS Lewis held to, or in recent times, McKim; but that raises as many problems, because then you have to decide which bits aren't inerrant (ie, reflect cultural understanding of the time).

Either proposition has problems. Nobody ever said hermeneutics had to be easy. :teeth:

I am not qualified to speak for either side on the scientific issues, but as someone who is a Christian, and preaches from the bible, my trust in the word has grown the more I look into it, and that is because I trust the author. That's rather an unassailable position, and certainly something skeptics won't like. But then, I was a skeptic once.

Who cares about skeptics? (Don't get me wrong - I am one). What I mean is - this isn't a debate about skepticism vs faith, it is a debate about literal interpretations that fly in the face of science vs exegesis that either does not attempt to assess propositions about nature from the Bible - or at least uses an interpretation informed by science to evaluate propositions about nature derived from the Bible.

[Jimmy Higgins]

03-11-2003 @ 11:27 AM
Socratism:
'Leading scientists still reject God', Nature 394(6691):313, 23 July 1998 Is that an editorial? Is that a statistic? Or is that fact? I don't have any Nature magazines near right now. Thanks.

[Socratism]

03-11-2003 @ 04:29 PM
Jimmy Higgins:

Is that an editorial? Is that a statistic? Or is that fact? I don't have any Nature magazines near right now. Thanks.

Try this:

http://www.atheists.org/flash.line/atheism1.htm

" ..., the highest rate of belief in a god was found among mathematicians (14.3%), while the lowest was found among those in the life sciences fields -- only 5.5%."

[QED]

Guys, please do bear in mind that these figures were compiled from polling members of the NAS, not a representative sample of all scientists.

[Jimmy Higgins]

03-11-2003 @ 05:19 PM
Socratism:
Try this:

http://www.atheists.org/flash.line/atheism1.htm

" ..., the highest rate of belief in a god was found among mathematicians (14.3%), while the lowest was found among those in the life sciences fields -- only 5.5%." Thanks for another number. However, I think you may be misunderstanding something. 14.3% is not a majority, its a small majority. It may be more than the rate of atheism with the uneducated, however, 14.3% is hardly an overwhelming number. That means, I'd guess, that 85.7% of them believe in god(s)! Thats a sounding majority.

[QED]

03-12-2003 @ 03:00 AM
Jimmy Higgins:

Thanks for another number. However, I think you may be misunderstanding something. 14.3% is not a majority, its a small majority. It may be more than the rate of atheism with the uneducated, however, 14.3% is hardly an overwhelming number. That means, I'd guess, that 85.7% of them believe in god(s)! Thats a sounding majority.

JH - you may want to check those numbers again. 14.3% is a minority, and it represents the largest percentage of believers among a field in the poll of NAS.

Remember that 50% did not respond, and that that it starts with a sample that isn't representative of all scientists. That said, 14.3% is a small minority (which is not a majority or a small majority). With biologists in specific, among those from the NAS who answered the poll, even a smaller minority were believers. This says nothing about scientists or evolutionists, but it does say something about those American scientists who have been admitted into the NAS and who thought this was a good poll to respond to.

[bobazilla]

Why are the numbers of believers so low in those fields?

[Socrates]

QED:Here we have the reason for the thread. Socrates has decided that his interpretive view of the Bible (YEC) is equivalent to the "written Word of the infallible God." This is my beef. YEC is a human invention - a human interpretation of the Bible. No, it's humans taking God at his word, using the grammatical/historical approach. God inspired Scripture so that fallible people could understand it, not wait for mostly unbelieving scientists to tell them that Genesis doesn't mean what it says. [list]It does not get immunity from falsification or criticism on the basis of Divine infallability. Socrates, Ham, Gish, & Morris are all fallible humans. Don't let them convince you otherwise.As if we are the inventors of YEC. Actually this view was practically universal in the church for most of its history, and it was the way the New Testament authors understood it. And like Jaltus, I regard all parts of Scripture as inspired, rather than treat the "red letter" parts as somehow more inspired. OEC and TE are the novelties, not YEC.

[tgamble]

03-10-2003 @ 07:55 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=31563#post31563)
Sheepdog:

regarding theistic evolution: the Theory of Evolution is where i draw the line. i have seen several valid objections aganst Darwinian Evolution, including what i think is the strongest, Irreducable Complexity. what science has shown is that there are systems in organisms that require multiple parts to function.

You should read some of the scientific reviews of Darwin's black Box. His claims have been throughly refuted.

[GrayPilgrim]

Says you. Tgamble, It would be so nice to see if you could construct a cogent adn lucid argument that does not consist of more than "No it isn't" You need to quit your job with the "Ministry of Arguments".

[tgamble]

03-11-2003 @ 01:20 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=32146#post32146)
Socratism:

I think you are correct in pointing out that YECers are only fallible human beings. Do you agree that this is also true of evolutionary scientists?

Scientists don't pretend to be infallible. YECs do as they declare their dogma to be the absolute truth.

[tgamble]

Today @ 02:19 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=67448#post67448)
GrayPilgrim:

Says you. Tgamble,

No, says the many many scientists that have reviewed Behe's claims.

This is not a topic about Behe so I didn't go into detail. If you want to start a discussion, go ahead and so so.

[tgamble]

Today @ 06:30 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=67164#post67164)
Socrates:

QED:Here we have the reason for the thread. Socrates has decided that his interpretive view of the Bible (YEC) is equivalent to the "written Word of the infallible God." This is my beef. YEC is a human invention - a human interpretation of the Bible.

No, it's humans taking God at his word,

Evidence for this?

using the grammatical/historical approach. God inspired Scripture so that fallible people could understand it,

Any evidence that God inspired scripture?

not wait for mostly unbelieving scientists to tell them that Genesis doesn't mean what it says.

Ok, fine, It means what it says and it's wrong. Happy?

[list] Actually this view was practically universal in the church for most of its history, and it was the way the New Testament authors understood it.

Why would they do anything else? They didn't know that the earth was really old. But you haven't given any evidence that they rejected any other possibility as AIG does.

[tgamble]

Today @ 02:19 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=67448#post67448)
GrayPilgrim:
It would be so nice to see if you could construct a cogent adn lucid argument that does not consist of more than "No it isn't"

Same to you. It would be nice to see evidence from ANY YEC here but nobody has been able to present any evidence whatsoever that

1) The earth is young

2) A global flood ever happened or is even possible.

3) Dating methods don't work.

4) Evolution is wrong

etc. etc. etc.

We see lots of assertations from people like Socrates, Snowball, Socratism and others but no actual evidence.

Whenever they attack science they just make unsupported assertations often with a link to AIG propaganda.

[Duvenoy]

Having no desire to get into this argument, I will only state that Genesis is simply another creation myth. A rather beautiful one, but one among many. Every belief system that humans ever invented had one; all of them pretty fantastic.

doov

[GrayPilgrim]

Today @ 09:29 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=67458#post67458)
tgamble:



Same to you. It would be nice to see evidence from ANY YEC here but nobody has been able to present any evidence whatsoever that

1) The earth is young

2) A global flood ever happened or is even possible.

3) Dating methods don't work.

4) Evolution is wrong

etc. etc. etc.

We see lots of assertations from people like Socrates, Snowball, Socratism and others but no actual evidence.

Whenever they attack science they just make unsupported assertations often with a link to AIG propaganda.

I do not get involved with the technical side fo this debate for a number of reasons, mainly, I am not interested. I am more a linguist and exegete, so I prefer looking at texts.

Moreover, I have not seen any proof only assumption from minor to major in support of Macro Evolution (micro evolution is different ball of wax (it is the minor that is used to extrapulate to teh major (macro evolution). The scientific Method requires repeatability. And as it has yet to repeat evolution (from cells to fully functioning organisms) it can not be called anything but cosmognic speculation. I know, "well if we had the billions of years..." Well the fact that you can't repeat stuff makes it cosmognic specualtion. I think your varient of cosmognic specualtion requires one to ignore too many abnormalities to make a cogent argument hence I don't buy it.

[tgamble]

Today @ 06:19 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=67767#post67767)
GrayPilgrim:

Moreover, I have not seen any proof only assumption from minor to major in support of Macro Evolution (micro evolution is different ball of wax (it is the minor that is used to extrapulate to teh major (macro
evolution).

Not really. Evidence for macroevolution comes from several different fields.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc

The scientific Method requires repeatability. And as it has yet to repeat evolution (from cells to fully functioning organisms) it can not be called anything but cosmognic speculation.

So much for forensic science.

[John Reece]

...they attack science...

No.

YECs do not attack science.

YECs challenge scientism.

[Socratism]

Today @ 12:57 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=67731#post67731)
Duvenoy:

Having no desire to get into this argument, I will only state that Genesis is simply another creation myth. A rather beautiful one, but one among many. Every belief system that humans ever invented had one; all of them pretty fantastic.

doov

The amazing thing about the creation "myth" in Genesis is that nobody is able to show that it is not true.

I used to buy into the idea that the stories in scripture were only myths.

But then came the Space Age and we all found out that the previous pronouncements of the modern high priests were quite wrong.

Outer space was not essentially empty. It contained among other things:

. magnetic and electrical fields (Van Allen belt)

. unique instead of similar planetary compositions

. Great Walls and other structures, not uniformity

In Biology DNA was discovered:

. simplicity (protoplasm) dissolved, replaced by vast complexity

. enlightenment receded, decades of hard work loomed

. each discovery uncovers more astronishing features


At what point will atheistic origins scientists tumble that the simplistic ideas of the Civil War era must be discarded?

Ans: probably never because the alternative is unthinkable to them.

[RufusAtticus]

Today @ 01:19 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=67767#post67767)
GrayPilgrim:

Moreover, I have not seen any proof only assumption from minor to major in support of Macro Evolution (micro evolution is different ball of wax (it is the minor that is used to extrapulate to teh major (macro evolution).

Then you should pick up an evolutionary biology textbook, such as Futuyma's. Here (http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/postmonth/jul01.html) is a t.o. POTM by me that covers this issue.

The scientific Method requires repeatability.
No, the scientific method requires testability. Repeatability is just one way to test things.

it has yet to repeat evolution (from cells to fully functioning organisms)
Cells are fully functioning organisms.

[tgamble]

Today @ 07:07 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=67880#post67880)
John Reece:
No.

YECs do not attack science.

YECs challenge scientism.

No really. They attack science. :bonk:

[tgamble]

Today @ 08:10 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=67997#post67997)
Socratism:

The amazing thing about the creation "myth" in Genesis is that nobody is able to show that it is not true.


Not if you dismiss any facts that show it isn't true as false by definition.

Outer space was not essentially empty. It contained among other things:

. magnetic and electrical fields (Van Allen belt)

. unique instead of similar planetary compositions

. Great Walls and other structures, not uniformity


So?

In Biology DNA was discovered:

. simplicity (protoplasm) dissolved, replaced by vast complexity
. enlightenment receded, decades of hard work loomed
. each discovery uncovers more astronishing features


And the more discovered the more evolution was confirmed.

At what point will atheistic origins scientists tumble that the simplistic ideas of the Civil War era must be discarded?

Ans: probably never because the alternative is unthinkable to them.

You go ahead and believe that. It's probably preferable to the truth.

[Findo]

I don't know that there is a scriptural reference.. but it sounds like you are imposing our modern view of a window (being a wooden or metal frame with a sheet of glass inside) into the term window which from the context (and I dare say the ancient from) was an opening.. the point? The heaven's opening?
In a sense you are comparing apples and oranges when you refer to God forming man form the clay.. and the imnportant point of tha is that God created us...

I thikn it is generally obvious from the context whether or not a passage is literal or metaphorical etc.

Andrew

[Socratism]

Much of the problem is in trying to "force" an interpretation using an English.
translation.

Anyone who is the least familiar with translation knows that there is rarely an exact one-to-one relationship between individual words in different languages.

A more serious problem in the case of the Old Testament is that some Hebrew words may have changed in meaning over millenia.

And finally there is the case of idioms that sometimes have meanings far removed from a literal word for word translation. New arrivals in America sometimes struggle with what we here consider are common expressions like "hit the road".