Christianity and science .. vs.. junk-science evolutionism

[Anguspure]

Sorry, I don't have the time or interest to give you an education in science. There is plenty of information on the internet, or take a course at your local community college.

It is because I have some education in this little corner of knowledge that I am fully aware of what I am saying.
I am not sure that the devotees of "Evolution" and Scientism can say the same. Or if they can then the use of the words in the context they use them is dishonest.
Without definition your assertions are completely meaningless except that they are the babblings of the ideaologically driven.

 

[Kristen Johnson]

I'm not sure why we continue to fight over things like this - it just divides us. I try to concentrate on the Gospel message and not little details like evolution or creation. My two cents.

 

[Anguspure]

Mental gymnastics doesn't make what the Hebrews wrote, editing and incorporating what Moses originally wrote, correct. The creation story of Genesis is untenable. Its basically a hijacking of pieces of ancient, Mesopotamian history on the part of the Jews and making it their own, vainly attempting to trace their blood lines back to Adam whom they assumed was the first man on earth. But then comes a scientific age of investigation and just a little common sense.

I disagree. If you start, as Genesis does with the very broadest of understands: Beresh-t bara Elohim et hashamayim ve'et ha'arets, then there is nothing untenable at all about, unless you are predisposed towards atheism, that is.

The following passage up to the creation of Adam, again read with broad understanding as the Hebrew text allows, meets almost exactly what I have been taught by secular sources as the order in whic things came about. We have, in order, distinct phases of light, forming into different forms of matter, gravity acting on fluids and mass, a planetary system forming, and atmosphere present on a planet, the origin of plant life followed by life in the sea, then life on the earth followed lastly by the origin of mankind.
All of this is completely tenable.

It seems that the major hang ups, apart from the atheistic problem, are the time involved (easily resolved on relativity), the nebular hypothesis (questionable at least in terms of the Solar system), and the insistence upon the extrapolation of Natural Selection as the explanation for origin of life (completely absurd).

 

[Anguspure]

I'm not sure why we continue to fight over things like this - it just divides us. I try to concentrate on the Gospel message and not little details like evolution or creation. My two cents.

Absolutely the Gospel is of primary importance but: Two Jews, three opinions. There is a long history in Judeo-Christian culture of debate and argument. Our universities and modern science itself were founded on such pursuits.
I hope its not a fight. Vigourous discussion is a hallmark of intelligent reasoning the discipline of which is an education in itself.

 

[Colter]

I disagree. If you start, as Genesis does with the very broadest of understands: Beresh-t bara Elohim et hashamayim ve'et ha'arets, then there is nothing untenable at all about, unless you are predisposed towards atheism, that is.

The following passage up to the creation of Adam, again read with broad understanding as the Hebrew text allows, meets almost exactly what I have been taught by secular sources as the order in whic things came about. We have, in order, distinct phases of light, forming into different forms of matter, gravity acting on fluids and mass, a planetary system forming, and atmosphere present on a planet, the origin of plant life followed by life in the sea, then life on the earth followed lastly by the origin of mankind.
All of this is completely tenable.

It seems that the major hang ups, apart from the atheistic problem, are the time involved (easily resolved on relativity), the nebular hypothesis (questionable at least in terms of the Solar system), and the insistence upon the extrapolation of Natural Selection as the explanation for origin of life (completely absurd).

The religious leaders of the Israelites wrote a simple story of origins for public consumption. It was nationalistic, it was tradition and the tradition became sacred and the sacred traditions eventually became the word of God wherein institutional authority is derived.

Unfortunately religion is a proud, stubborn institution which by its very nature rejects reform. There is no proses for redacting the errors of the man made scripture books. So today people are stuck pounding square pegs into round holes in order to make Genesis work.

Atheistic scientist use the intransigence of anti-science religionists against them.

There is every indication, contrary to YEC claims, that life as we know it today evolved from original life forms on an earth that evolved through accretion. The earliest rocks date in line with asteroids that bombard the earth from time to time.

 

[BobRyan]

The religious leaders of the Israelites wrote a simple story of origins for public consumption. It was nationalistic, it was tradition and the tradition became sacred and the sacred traditions eventually became the word of God wherein institutional authority is derived.

Unfortunately religion is a proud, stubborn institution which by its very nature rejects reform. There is no proses for redacting the errors of the man made scripture books. .

I fully understand that your belief in evolutionism requires that you down grade the Bible just as you have claimed to do.

But there are a lot of Christians here who take a different path. real virgin birth - real bodily resurrection - real ascension of Christ into heaven and real 7 day creation week in Exodus 20:11 and Genesis 1-2.

I am sure you can understand that taking the Bible seriously in that way is not compatible with belief in evolutionism.

 

[Jipsah]

I have discussed theses things with BobRyan before, the incarnation of God becoming Mary's baby was the miricle of miricles. Jesus ressurected after death and returned home.

Ah, but in Bob's economy that isn't enough. You also have to believe that God ripped a page off His desk calendar after every "day" of the Creation, and then kicked back for a day (a 24 hour day, by cracky! None of those 1000 year God days!) before He went on with governing the universe. If you don't believe that, then you're a heathen, please take a seat in that hand basket.

 

[Colter]

I fully understand that your belief in evolutionism requires that you down grade the Bible just as you have claimed to do.

But there are a lot of Christians here who take a different path. real virgin birth - real bodily resurrection - real ascension of Christ into heaven and real 7 day creation week in Exodus 20:11 and Genesis 1-2.

I am sure you can understand that taking the Bible seriously in that way is not compatible with belief in evolutionism.

Yes, I understand that, that's why it's important to look at the Bible as books written by humans of varying quality and accuracy. Bibliolatry puts people in an awkward position of having to deny reality.

The religion of Jesus, as opposed to religions about Jesus, frees man to follow the whole truth wherever it goes. The denials by so called disciples of Jesus who reject the evidence of scientific inquiry lead people to reject the religion about Jesus because they can see the errors of your YEC right off the bat. Then there's Noah's flood, so before even getting to the spiritual truths contained within the Bible books, you have already lost people.

 

[Anguspure]

The religious leaders of the Israelites wrote a simple story of origins for public consumption. It was nationalistic, it was tradition and the tradition became sacred and the sacred traditions eventually became the word of God wherein institutional authority is derived.

There is a quaint tradition going around about some people who "invented and designed" the motorcar that doesn't meet with all of the facts and details of motorcar design and production in its one page (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_automobile).
The story says nothing of the physics or metalurgy involved and we know all about those things from pulling millions of cars apart and naming all of the components. Furthermore we can find no trace of these supposed designers anywhere in the vehicles we have studied.
Clearly, on your position, this is an untenable story that should be discarded because lets face it we know that the motorcar evolved.
http://blog.world-mysteries.com/science/127-years-of-modern-automobile-evolution/

Unfortunately religion is a proud, stubborn institution which by its very nature rejects reform. There is no proses for redacting the errors of the man made scripture books. So today people are stuck pounding square pegs into round holes in order to make Genesis work.

Atheistic scientist use the intransigence of anti-science religionists against them.

There is every indication, contrary to YEC claims, that life as we know it today evolved from original life forms on an earth that evolved through accretion. The earliest rocks date in line with asteroids that bombard the earth from time to time.

But the story doesn't disagree with the actual findings of Science in any other than the issues I mentioned above.

The discipline of Science, in biological science in particular, is also becoming a proud, stubborn institution which by its very nature rejects reform.

It is well known how nasty the high priests of Scientism are against anybody who might suggest that Darwin is wrong as an explanation for origin of species.

The statue of Richard Owen, one of the greatest anatomists of the nineteenth century has been removed from the Natural History Museum in London (a museum he founded) because of this fervour.

It is clear that Darwins Natural Selection has been well over extended as an explanation and should have been restricted to that of the fine tuning of biological forms to meet the changing environments they live in.

160 years later no actual advances into origins have been made because of this stubborn and foolish insistence on banging our heads against the wall of absurdity out the fear that some religous people might say that God is around the corner.

Further, the whole field of Ideaological Naturalism poisons every area that it touches with its disdain for rational reason and design and its insistence on explanations that only exist within the observable 4 corners of the universe. The only way that anybody really advances at the forefront of biology, neuroscience or cosmology with the methodological frame work of Naturalism looking over their shoulders, is after paying lip service to the rules, sitting them in the corner and telling them to be quiet.

 

[Colter]

There is a quaint tradition going around about some people who "invented and designed" the motorcar that doesn't meet with all of the facts and details of motorcar design and production in its one page (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_automobile).
The story says nothing of the physics or metalurgy involved and we know all about those things from pulling millions of cars apart and naming all of the components. Furthermore we can find no trace of these supposed designers anywhere in the vehicles we have studied.
Clearly, on your position, this is an untenable story that should be discarded because lets face it we know that the motorcar evolved.
http://blog.world-mysteries.com/science/127-years-of-modern-automobile-evolution/


But the story doesn't disagree with the actual findings of Science in any other than the issues I mentioned above.

The discipline of Science, in biological science in particular, is also becoming a proud, stubborn institution which by its very nature rejects reform.

It is well known how nasty the high priests of Scientism are against anybody who might suggest that Darwin is wrong as an explanation for origin of species.

The statue of Richard Owen, one of the greatest anatomists of the nineteenth century has been removed from the Natural History Museum in London (a museum he founded) because of this fervour.

It is clear that Darwins Natural Selection has been well over extended as an explanation and should have been restricted to that of the fine tuning of biological forms to meet the changing environments they live in.

160 years later no actual advances into origins have been made because of this stubborn and foolish insistence on banging our heads against the wall of absurdity out the fear that some religous people might say that God is around the corner.

Further, the whole field of Ideaological Naturalism poisons every area that it touches with its disdain for rational reason and design and its insistence on explanations that only exist within the observable 4 corners of the universe. The only way that anybody really advances at the forefront of biology, neuroscience or cosmology with the methodological frame work of Naturalism looking over their shoulders, is after paying lip service to the rules, sitting them in the corner and telling them to be quiet.

I thought I was clear earlier, I believe, without any doubt, that Life as we know it was created by God. On this particular world life developed through a process of A fostered evolution. Therefore, Creation and evolution are entirely compatible. When we sot through the archeological record we are simply observing the remains of this evolutionary process.

With religion sticking to the Genesis story, and I disagree with you that it's compatible, those who see the evidence of evolution have developed a hardness or scientism against the ridiculous claims of religion.

 

[Anguspure]

I thought I was clear earlier, I believe, without any doubt, that Life as we know it was created by God. On this particular world life developed through a process of A fostered evolution. Therefore, Creation and evolution are entirely compatible. When we sot through the archeological record we are simply observing the remains of this evolutionary process.

With religion sticking to the Genesis story, and I disagree with you that it's compatible, those who see the evidence of evolution have developed a hardness or scientism against the ridiculous claims of religion.

And yet here is a portion of an article entitle Creation: A Convergence of Torah and Science Once unthinkable, the accounts of creation by Torah and science are converging originally printed in Jewish Life Magazine written by Professor Nathan Aviezer (www.aviezer.org):

It is not unreasonable to assume that science and the Torah are both referring to one and the same subject. It is a pleasure for a person of faith to be living in this day and age!

The current harmony between science and faith was not always the case. Only a few decades ago, the outstanding Torah scholar Rav Joseph B. Soloveitchik expressed the then-existing dichotomy between science and faith in a classic essay entitled “The Lonely Man of Faith.”9 Using the word “lonely” to describe the feelings of the man of faith who lives in a scientific world, Rav Soloveitchik wrote:

“Being people of faith in our contemporary world is a lonely experience. We are loyal to visionary expectations which find little support in present-day reality... Religious faith is condescendingly regarded as a subjective palliative, but is given little credence as a repository of truth.”10

Now, only half a century later, in one scientific discipline after another, the words of the scientist can hardly be distinguished from the words of “the man of faith.” Professor Stephen J. Gould of Harvard University tells us that “human intelligence is the result of a staggeringly improbable series of events, utterly unpredictable, and quite unrepeatable.”11 The term “luck” is now commonly used by evolutionary biologists like Professor David Raup, past president of the American Paleontological Union, to “explain” the existence of human beings.12 Archaeologists express their amazement at the “radical and sudden changes, with no premonitory signs”13 that mark the appearance of civilization, and they speak of a sudden “quantum leap in mental abilities”14 that appears in the archaeological record of human cultural behaviour. Scientists in a wide variety of disciplines discuss the “anthropic principle,” which states that the universe looks as if it had been specifically designed to permit the existence and promote the welfare of human beings.15 The Cambridge Encyclopedia of Astronomy expresses this idea in the following poetic words: “In truth, we are the children of the Universe.”16

The scientific discoveries recorded above are exactly what one would expect if the Torah account of the origin of the universe was correct. Therefore, such harmony between Torah and science constitutes an important argument in support of our religious belief. Modern science has become a significant element in strengthening our ancient faith.

9. J. B. Soloveitchik, Spring 1965, Tradition, pp. 5-67.
10. See the adaptation of the 1965 Soloveitchik essay (especially p. 8) by A. R. Besdin, 1989, Man of Faith in the Modern World (Ktav: New York), pp. 36-37.
11. S. J. Gould, 1989, Wonderful Life (W. W. Norton: New York), p. 14.
12. D. M. Raup, 1991, Extinctions: Bad Genes or Bad Luck? (Oxford University Press).
13. N. Eldredge, 1985, Time Frames (Simon and Schuster: New York), p. 87.
14. N. Eldredge and I. Tattersall, 1982, The Myths of Human Evolution (Columbia University Press: New York), p. 154.
15. G. Gale, December 1981, “Anthropic Principle,” Scientific American, pp. 114-122.
16. S. Mitton, editor-in-chief, 1987, The Cambridge Encyclopedia of Astronomy (Jonathan Cape: London), p. 125.

 

[Colter]

And yet here is a portion of an article entitle Creation: A Convergence of Torah and Science Once unthinkable, the accounts of creation by Torah and science are converging originally printed in Jewish Life Magazine written by Professor Nathan Aviezer (www.aviezer.org):

The discovery of evolution, intelligently designed, does indeed reflect the fingerprints of the creator, but it doesn't substantiate the Hebrews creation story or Noah's flood. That's a stretch.

 

[Paul of Eugene OR]

Contrived evidence - such as the moth and Marsh's infamous horse series still on display at the Smithsonian - has strong "emotional appeal" but is of no actual scientific value.
. . . .!

The horse fossils you claim to be "contrived" are perfectly real and illustrate evolution very well. The moth example remains valid. Evolution remains true in spite of your religious disbelief.

 

[Paul of Eugene OR]

I fully understand that your belief in evolutionism requires that you down grade the Bible just as you have claimed to do.

But there are a lot of Christians here who take a different path. real virgin birth - real bodily resurrection - real ascension of Christ into heaven and real 7 day creation week in Exodus 20:11 and Genesis 1-2.

I am sure you can understand that taking the Bible seriously in that way is not compatible with belief in evolutionism.

And there are a lot of Christians who take the path of real virgin birth, real bodily resurrection, real ascension of Christ, evolution and long age of earth real.

Just like we take the rotation of the earth as real rather than the sun rising and setting, or holding still for Joshua.

How long will kick against God's reality?

 

[Wunderlust]

Further, the whole field of Ideaological Naturalism poisons every area that it touches with its disdain for rational reason and design and its insistence on explanations that only exist within the observable 4 corners of the universe. The only way that anybody really advances at the forefront of biology, neuroscience or cosmology with the methodological frame work of Naturalism looking over their shoulders, is after paying lip service to the rules, sitting them in the corner and telling them to be quiet.

Actually, there are countless articles being published all the time, utilizing verifiable research that has improved health and well being.

 

[Wunderlust]

Science welcome.

But junk-science fiction about the belief that "an amoeba will sure enough turn into a rabbit over time given a talented enough amoeba and a long and talented enough period of time filled with just-so stories on mount-improbable that are easy enough to tell but they are not science" - can be left at home.

And without that level of junk-science -- no Bible-bending needed.

That's not how evolution works.

It doesn't even sound like you understand middle school biology.

 

[Wunderlust]

Yes - the Bible is true. And yes there are some efforts to hijack science in the name of blind-faith evolutionism - but we need not pretend we don't "notice" when that happens.

Evolution is based on overwhelming verifiable evidence.

Creationism is based on ignoring the obvious juxtaposition of two contradictory creation accounts in Genesis 1 and 2 by the north and southern tribes of Israel.

 

[Wunderlust]

This is exactly what I mean by "snake oil quakery.
"Define "science" and define "evolution".

Without proper definition of such broad terms the statement as it was made is an ideaological statement of faith in Scientism.

The fact is that Darwinism has almost nothing of use to contribute to technological innovation in the world and in fact it is the recognition of astonishing design and functional coherence at a molecular biological level that is leading to some of the most startling advances in the world today.

To try and sell "science" and "evolution" it as some dogmatic over arching "truth" is very much quakery. Just substitute "the great fairy godmother said that we all magicked into existence a long, long time ago" next time it will be more plausable.

Advances in molecular biology are not made based on any supposition of intelligent design.

They are actually based on evolution. Molecular biology provides overwhelming evidence of evolution. Researchers can study genes, drugs, and mechanisms by the relationship between species.

 

[Wunderlust]

================== we start with the obvious

What is so obvious about the text that even Atheists can see what the text is saying

Professor James Barr, Regius Professor of Hebrew at the University of Oxford, has written:

‘Probably, so far as I know, there is no professor of Hebrew or Old Testament at any world-class university who does not believe that the writer(s) of Genesis 1–11 intended to convey to their readers the ideas that: (a) creation took place in a series of six days which were the same as the days of 24 hours we now experience (b) the figures contained in the Genesis genealogies provided by simple addition a chronology from the beginning of the world up to later stages in the biblical story (c) Noah’s flood was understood to be world-wide and extinguish all human and animal life except for those in the ark. Or, to put it negatively, the apologetic arguments which suppose the "days" of creation to be long eras of time, the figures of years not to be chronological, and the flood to be a merely local Mesopotamian flood, are not taken seriously by any such professors, as far as I know.’

That's incredibly silly. About any professor at any serious school teaching the Old Testament would not believe that the stories of Genesis like Creation and the Flood are literal accounts.

The person you are quoting was an evangelical fundamentalist.

 

[BobRyan]

================== we start with the obvious

What is so obvious about the text that even Atheists can see what the text is saying

Professor James Barr, Regius Professor of Hebrew at the University of Oxford, has written:

‘Probably, so far as I know, there is no professor of Hebrew or Old Testament at any world-class university who does not believe that the writer(s) of Genesis 1–11 intended to convey to their readers the ideas that: (a) creation took place in a series of six days which were the same as the days of 24 hours we now experience (b) the figures contained in the Genesis genealogies provided by simple addition a chronology from the beginning of the world up to later stages in the biblical story (c) Noah’s flood was understood to be world-wide and extinguish all human and animal life except for those in the ark. Or, to put it negatively, the apologetic arguments which suppose the "days" of creation to be long eras of time, the figures of years not to be chronological, and the flood to be a merely local Mesopotamian flood, are not taken seriously by any such professors, as far as I know.’


========================= obvious detail #2 -- legal code applied to humans at Sinai


In the Bible we have this "legal code" -

Ex 20:8-11 "Remember the Sabbath day to keep it holy - SIX days you shall labor... For in SIX days the Lord made the heavens and the earth, the sea and all that is in them, and rested on the seventh day; therefore the Lord blessed the Sabbath day and made it holy."

Gen 2:1-3
Thus the heavens and the earth were completed, and all their hosts. 2 By the seventh day God completed His work which He had done, and He rested on the seventh day from all His work which He had done. 3 Then God blessed the seventh day and sanctified it, because in it He rested from all His work which God had created and made
=============================================

Continuity -

It is very clear that Christ, the Jews of Christ's day and those of today - followed that same Ex 20:8-11 command so much so that they continue to keep the Bible 7th day Sabbath and even Christians who claim that 2000 years ago Christ was raised on week-day-1 keep Sunday as week-day-1 affirming the same 7 day cycle with Saturday as the 7th day.

=================================================

So now then -- ignoring every detail posted so far -- we have

For this, people like you and I are derided for not "believing in the Bible", et cetera, but some people take a literal, Antiochene interpretation of the Old Testament to the point that they deny even the spherical nature of the world, while at the same time insisting on an interpretation of the New Testament, which is of immediate immanent relevance as the literal encounter of man with God incarnate, which manu prophets and patriarchs of the old desired to see but did not, but which the entire Old Testament is a prophecy of, which is so figurative as to be ephemeral.

The idea proposed for us to imagine there is that James Barr and all professors of world class universities are people who " take a literal, Antiochene interpretation of the Old Testament to the point that they deny even the spherical nature of the world, while at the same time insisting on an interpretation of the New Testament, which is of immediate immanent relevance as the literal encounter of man with God incarnate"

That's incredibly silly.

It is never silly to start with -- the obvious when it comes to admitting to the Bible's 7 day creation week in Genesis 1-2:3.

But if your statement is that it is silly to imagine the wild fiction that James Barr and those other professors would need to deny a round earth if they admitted that the Genesis -1-2 describes a 7 day week -- well then ... that too is an obvious point.

About any professor at any serious school teaching the Old Testament would not believe that the stories of Genesis like Creation and the Flood are literal accounts.

Your distance from "the actual details" -- noted.

It has never been claimed that those atheist and agnostic professors "Believe Genesis" -- rather it is claimed that they "know what it says" and - as Hebrew literature can easily see the intent of the author.

Again... "The obvious".

The person you are quoting was an evangelical fundamentalist.

Just not in real life.

In real life he is a diehard evolutionist. And is claim about his peers in all the world-class universities - is speaking about athiests and agnostics.