Clearing up misconceptions about evolution

[selfinflikted]

You may "Look Inside" or I could list some details from my copies.

- The Uniqueness of the Bible

And here I thought the Bible was a conglomeration of cherry-picked pagan practices, creation myths, and messianic archetypes. Glad you cleared that up.

 

[NailsII]

Please don't, because you've just repeated three popular myths about the Bible, all ceaselessly promulgated by amateurish Bible-bashing websites. While I appreciate your efforts to contribute to the thread by clearing up misconceptions about evolution, in the process you've emphasized your own misconceptions about the Bible.

Indeed, your pontification on topics in which you have very little knowledge is remarkably similar to what ill-informed Young Earth Creationist do in creating straw-man arguments to deny evolution. You, much like the YECs here, repeat the nonsense you've heard from your favorite self-appointed "experts" and perpetuate debunked mantras despite having been corrected countless times.


So here we go one more time:


1) "Bats are not birds."

The Bible never claims that they are. The underlying Hebrew word's definition is much closer to "flying creatures which are not also insects", but skilled translators dealing with any pairing of source and target languages must grapple with differential mapping of semantic fields while also producing a final text which reads smoothly.

But even as a reader unskilled in basic linguistics, you should have applied common sense and realized that you've committed an ANACHRONISM FALLACY in expecting an ancient culture (or even a 1611 KJV Bible translator) to adopt Linnaean taxonomy (concerning formal classifications of mammal vs. bird) long before Carl Linnaeus was born. Of course, even today there are many cultures, such as Amazonian rain forest tribes, whose languages group ALL warm-blooded flying creatures into a single-word term. To expect their languages to segregate flying mammals from flying avians is naive cultural bigotry at best and downright ridiculous naivete at its worst. But, I dare say, to call a simple lexical FACT of the ancient Hebrew language a "Bible error" is just as silly as many of the equally clueless anti-evolution rants of dogmatic YECs.


2) "Pi is not 3."

The Bible never states that Pi=3. The amateur Bible-bashers who try to concoct an "error" from 1Kings 7:23 demonstrate an ignorance of elementary schools mathematics that rivals their struggles with basic reading comprehension skills.

a) The Bible is not describing an "ideal cylinder" with a wall of paper-thin thickness. The text doesn't tell us whether the basin had the same diameter from top to bottom. We don't even know if the implied circumference is an inside or outside measurement. In fact, I would challenge you to consider every bowl and water basin you've ever seen. Were ANY of them a simple cylinder? Probably not. And 1Kings 7:26 explicitly tells us what common sense would suggest: "And it was a handbreadth thick; and the brim thereof was wrought like the brim of a cup, like the flower of a lily." Hardly a simple cylinder! And if it was an aesthetically-pleasing flared design, both the ambiguities and the mathematical complexities multiply.

b) In any case, if the reader is worried about mathematical precision, we also know that "Pi is not 3.14" and "Pi is not 3.1415926". Pi is both an irrational and a transcendental number. Pi cannot be expressed exactly in "decimal terms" nor as a ratio of two integers. So technically, both Pi=3 and P=3.1415926 are false statements. So I suppose Bible critics could complain of an "error" in the text, even if it included painstakingly precise measurements for the basin. But even if the math is over your head, you should be willing to admit that both of the aforementioned values for Pi are approximations, and as a result, you must also admit that BOTH are thereby correct. The only difference is the number of significant digits of precision. So even Pi=3 can be considered correct; it is simply a description of Pi to one-significant digit. And if you are the final judge of the required precision of the implied value of Pi in the 1Kings passage, are you telling us that it was "erroneous" for the author to round-off his measurement of the diameter of the basin to the nearest cubit (10 cubits) and/or the circumference, whichever of several he could have chosen to measure to the nearest cubit (30 cubits)? Indeed, if you still need help on the math, if the diameter was 9.55, multiplying by Pi yields a circumference of 30.0022093. Is that close enough for you? Or are trying to convince us that there is some "literary law" which says that authors are not allowed to round their numbers when giving a general description of an object? My reaction to your effort to call this a "Bible error": Lame. Lame. And very lame. [Actually, based on the use of Hebrew letters to express numbers in the Hebrew language, I could also cite the writings of various rabbis who demonstrate a much greater precision in the original language text but your "argument" has already been thoroughly debunked.]


3) "Animals don't get markings from their parents loking [sic] at stripped [sic] animals."

No they don't. But the Bible never claims that they do. (Your lack of sound reading comprehension skills have failed you again.) Instead, Genesis 30 records the simple fact that Jacob (and his culture in general) THOUGHT that what a pregnant animal saw could impact her offspring. Genesis 31 ignores Jacob's efforts at manipulation as irrelevant to the outcome and states that God favored Jacob with wealth by producing many more striped offspring (and speckled and mottled young, even if none of Jacob's rods had been of that pattern.) Nowhere does the Bible claim that Jacob's self-efforts had manipulated the genetic outcomes.





Considering that you are 0 for 3 so far, I'd say that you should quit while you're behind. While I enjoy the clueless mantras of arm-chair Bible critics almost as much as those of anti-evolution propagandists, the lame "arguments" do get tiresome after many decades of repetition. It is time to retire them and at least move on to something new.

1. The bible is the word of god.
An ancient culture which spoke directly with the creator of the universe, and was after all, writing down the words of said being, and he described a bat as with birds.
I wouldn't expect the ancient Hebrews to have the same knowledge as we have today, but the lack of any further advancements in knowledge are very revealing in my opinion - such as the 'insects that walk on 4 legs' in the following verse.
These may be the words of humans, they are certainly not the words of a god.
LEVITICUS 11

2. You may claim that the answer is rounded, but it should be 31 cubits around. Again, this can either show a lack of mathematical knowledge of the culture, or a lack of measuring skill (or to be fair, that they really didn't care about accuracy as it isn't a maths textbook).
Maybe this is what happens when you have demonic souls working for you....
Also in 2 Chronicles 4

3. Genesis 30:37-39 clearly states that Jacob displayed patterns to the animals so that their offspring would be patterns: "they bore young that were streaked or speckled or spotted".
It doesn't say he thought hey would, it says they did.

OK, so if I havn't yet made my point - then how do you get rid of mildew?
How do you atone for sin, or how do tell if your wife has been unfaithful?
Does your bible really give you an answer here?

 

[NailsII]

The Bible is a history of those people.

No it isn't.
It says nothing of the Aboriginies or the native Americans.
Nothing.
Not one single word.

 

[verysincere]

1. he described a bat as with birds.

Did you even try to read my answer????

I can't compensate for reading comprehension failings. I've already addressed the semantic domain issues of "bats and birds" as "flying creatures" when translating Hebrew (and many other languages.) Are you even trying to understand?

...but the lack of any further advancements in knowledge are very revealing in my opinion - such as the 'insects that walk on 4 legs' in the following verse.

Another popularly cliched "bible error".

Many insects DO walk on 4 "legs"! Insects have six LOCOMOTORY APPENDAGES but cultures and their languages differ in how they name and classify those six. (And, of course, insects differ in how they USE those six appendages, and that can impact how a culture names each type.)

Some cultures consider the six locomotory appendages to consist of 2 "arms", 2 "legs", and 2 "jumpers" or "feelers", depending upon the insects. Others refer to all six under one term. Others speak of 2 "big legs" and 4 "small legs", using very different words depending upon the type of "locomotory appendage". Once again you are trying to enforce modern English terminology on another culture (which you believe to be inferior to your own.) And once again, you are ignorant of how translators have to navigate these cultural and linguistic differences where naming conventions are very different, and produce a translation that doesn't read like a biology textbook by using terms the average reader doesn't understand.

Let's admit it: You are simply repeating popular myths you've learned from Bible-bashing websites and essays. Only the ill-informed fall for them. You are at liberty to be as naive and gullible as you wish. But not everyone is willing to join your conga line.

In any case, do you REALLY think it is likely that in an agriculturally-based culture, the author had never noticed how many "legs" were on locusts and grasshoppers? You've violated one of the most basic rules that a beginning anthropology student learns in the first semester: Don't assume that the people of a "primitive culture" are clueless about their environment and the things upon which their survival depends. (In other words, if you think that the ancient Hebrews didn't know how many "legs" were on locusts, a creature that was very important to their environment and crops, you lack common sense.)

These may be the words of humans, they are certainly not the words of a god.

Perhaps, based on your intimate knowledge of God, you could explain your insights sometime.

2. You may claim that the answer is rounded, but it should be 31 cubits around.

Once again, did you even read what I wrote? Apparently not, seeing how your reply ignores a very complete answer that addresses your cliches.

Maybe this is what happens when you have demonic souls working for you....

Alllllrightee. (Whatever you say.)

OK, so if I havn't yet made my point -

On that we certainly can agree!

then how do you get rid of mildew?

So now we are down to laundry tips and household cleaning advice? Wow, you really ARE desperate!

But in all fairness, we are getting way off the topic of this forum thread. If you truly and sincerely wish to be educated on these topics, send me a private email and I'll give you the address of the Bible.and.Science.Forum where such topics are discussed.

 

[NailsII]

Did you even try to read my answer????

Yes, I did.
I didn't find it entirely convincing.

Another popularly cliched "bible error".

Many insects DO walk on 4 "legs"! Insects have six LOCOMOTORY APPENDAGES but cultures and their languages differ in how they name and classify those six. (And, of course, insects differ in how they USE those six appendages, and that can impact how a culture names each type.)

Some cultures consider the six locomotory appendages to consist of 2 "arms", 2 "legs", and 2 "jumpers" or "feelers", depending upon the insects. Others refer to all six under one term. Others speak of 2 "big legs" and 4 "small legs", using very different words depending upon the type of "locomotory appendage". Once again you are trying to enforce modern English terminology on another culture (which you believe to be inferior to your own.) And once again, you are ignorant of how translators have to navigate these cultural and linguistic differences where naming conventions are very different, and produce a translation that doesn't read like a biology textbook by using terms the average reader doesn't understand.

As someone with a strong background in biology, I am aware of this.
I must confess that I know much more about mammals than insects, but I don't think that is an issue here.
As I mentioned in my reply to your earlier point, I am also aware that the Hebrew language would not have words for things that we can describe today, as we can do things they can't - I wouldn't expect them to have a word for a computer for instance.
But I would expect god to, and this is supposed to be the words of the creator of the universe. If he wanted to make a clear distinction for something that they were not linguistically able to describe, then he could have explained it to them.
But he, in his infinate wisdom, obviously chose not to.
I leave it to you decide the reason for this.

Let's admit it: You are simply repeating popular myths you've learned from Bible-bashing websites and essays. Only the ill-informed fall for them. You are at liberty to be as naive and gullible as you wish. But not everyone is willing to join your conga line.

In any case, do you REALLY think it is likely that in an agriculturally-based culture, the author had never noticed how many "legs" were on locusts and grasshoppers? You've violated one of the most basic rules that a beginning anthropology student learns in the first semester: Don't assume that the people of a "primitive culture" are clueless about their environment and the things upon which their survival depends. (In other words, if you think that the ancient Hebrews didn't know how many "legs" were on locusts, a creature that was very important to their environment and crops, you lack common sense.)

Myths from bible-bashing websites - I'm sure there is an irony in there somewhere.

Leviticus 11:21 - 23 clearly states:

There are, however, some flying insects that walk on all fours that you may eat: those that have jointed legs for hopping on the ground. 22 Of these you may eat any kind of locust, katydid, cricket or grasshopper. But all other flying insects that have four legs you are to regard as unclean.

Firstly, insects belong to arthropods - which means that they all have jointed legs.
I have no idea why it is acceptable to eat Orthoptera, and I'm not sure exactly what animal is being declared unclean here.
Perhaps you can enlighten me.

until then, I will assume that whoever wrote this passage had no coomon sense.

Perhaps, based on your intimate knowledge of God, you could explain your insights sometime.

I have no intimate knowledge of god.
I think that the bible was written by people who believed there was a god and tried to interpret his wishes.
That's why natural events are given a meaning, a direction and an instigator - because they had no other way to explain it.

Once again, did you even read what I wrote? Apparently not, seeing how your reply ignores a very complete answer that addresses your cliches.

Yes, I read it.
I don't agree with your conclusions.
The only point you make which is anywhere near valid is about the measurement of a circle, and maybe I'm expecting too much from the word of god.
It could also not have been a perfect circle, who knows?

So now we are down to laundry tips and household cleaning advice? Wow, you really ARE desperate!

But in all fairness, we are getting way off the topic of this forum thread. If you truly and sincerely wish to be educated on these topics, send me a private email and I'll give you the address of the Bible.and.Science.Forum where such topics are discussed.

Leviticus 13:47, 14:33 - regulations about moulds.
Laundry tips from god?
Who needs Kim & Aggie?

The thread is about misconceptions of evolution - I think it is not too far a stretch to consider these things misconceptions about biology.

If you don't understand biology, then you can't understand evolution.
Unless i'm just trying to justify this current line of posts.

Thanks for the kind offer, but to be fair if I wanted to discuss theology I would be posting in GA.

If you don't want to carry on, just say so.
I won't see it as a weakness, because such discussions can become extremely tiring when you just can't seem to get through to people - because it works both ways remember.

 

[verysincere]

NailsII, I'm short on time but I appreciate your sincerity and I'll try to respond briefly to your key points (even though I'm somewhat concerned a moderator is going to delete this as off-topic to the original question; it has happened to me before after posting a careful answer):

As I mentioned in my reply to your earlier point, I am also aware that the Hebrew language would not have words for things that we can describe today.....
But I would expect god to, and this is supposed to be the words of the creator of the universe. If he wanted to make a clear distinction for something that they were not linguistically able to describe, then he could have explained it to them.

What "clear distinction" do you think is needed in the passage but which is sadly lacking?

To put the question another way: For a covenant member of the Children of Israel wishing to be obedient to the commands of God, what do believe is deficient or absent from the text?

If you are observing that there are issues in the Biblical text which were very clear and meaningful to the intended primary audience of that time in history but which may CONFUSE or even BAFFLE us today, I would heartily agree. But if you are saying that readers of the Leviticus text in that ancient culture were somehow confused by the references to clean and unclean animals, I would genuinely like to understand your reasons.

Leviticus 11:21 - 23 clearly states:

Firstly, insects belong to arthropods - which means that they all have jointed legs.
I have no idea why it is acceptable to eat Orthoptera, and I'm not sure exactly what animal is being declared unclean here.
Perhaps you can enlighten me.

I never said that I know all of YHWH's reasons for placing some foods off limits. I do know that at least some of the reasons for some of the animals was because they tend to harbor harmful parasites and/or microbes hazardous to the human GI tract. And I also know that some Torah prohibitions were to forbid the Children of Israel taking on various pagan customs of the surrounding cultures. And still others were apparently intended to keep the Children of Israel a distinct people. (Indeed, that last goal has most certainly been met. Most of us don't have neighbors who can trace their heritage to an ancient ancestor in Ugarit or to an obscure Canaanite patriarch. But throughout the world one can easily find Children of Israel, Jewish people, who maintain their cultural identity and Torah concepts like Kosher food laws.)

No doubt the ancient Hebrew people didn't understand some of the purposes for the regulations which we can understand today, because we understand the germ theory of disease and the advantages of quarantine, for example. But what we today consider a wise practice of quarantine---isolating contagions---they simply understood as "being unclean" and remaining in isolation from society at large. And for that reason, because you mention a strong background in biology, I'm a little curious why you would find the "mildew regulations" perplexing---especially when the Hebrew word behind "mildew" had a much broader semantic domain that what a biologists would assume today. (The Hebrew word basically means some kind of contamination/corruption that was unhygienic or dangerous to health, everything from common molds to yeast infections to some types of skins rashes to you-name-it.)

But back to the food laws, God was giving his people general rules which would tend to keep them healthier in their environment, easy-to-follow instructions that the average person could live by for advantageous health purposes. Today we recognize rules like, "Don't drink from standing water." because it is a good rule of thumb when in the wilderness---even though there are, in fact, situations where standing water poses no danger. Even so, the general rule is a wise one and you could say it is simply a "wise heuristic".

In other words, if your point is that the prohibition against certain types of insects probably meant that they were forbidden from eating SOME kinds of insects which would generally have been a safe food source, I agree. But a general rule is a general rule, and it represents a guideline that a small child could be taught. And if you press me for a immunological, bacteriological, religious, or cultural reason (or whatever) why some particular insect genera was forbidden from their diet, I don't claim to know. Perhaps in that ecosystem at that time in history, there was some diseased host animal which tended to convey a hazardous contagion of some sort to particular insect genera. I have no idea. But a simple reading of the ancient texts suggests that there was some sort of reason, whether medical or cultural or whatever. I don't know today and I don't have to know.

The Biblical text is simply explaining, "What does a covenant member of the Mount Sinai contract between YHWH and the Children of Israel have to obey and do in order to maintain a proper relationship to YHWH?" Does the Hebrew text fall short of explaining that? I don't see how it does. If you have found something amiss, I'm fine with discussing it (although that issue is more appropriate to the aforementioned forum rather than this evolution thread.)

I do appreciate what I perceive to be the sincerity of your question and I'm doing my best to try to understand and address your questions.

...until then, I will assume that whoever wrote this passage had no common sense.

Why? If you are saying that you don't understand the purpose of all of the Torah details, I can say the same! (However, sometimes a modern-day rabbi will explain an issue to me that entirely escaped my notice but it is obvious to him, because he has lived under Torah Law since his childhood.)

And as I said, I have no doubt that some Torah regulations were almost entirely for the purpose of preserving the unique cultural identity of the Children of Israel, a goal which history proves has been fulfilled, considering the ongoing existence of the Hebrew people to this day. If you can declare such regulations of "no common sense", that is a subjective judgment (though I can understand why some of them would seem very bizarre to some modern-day readers.)

... and maybe I'm expecting too much from the word of god.

I know from teaching religious studies and ancient texts that we ALL tend to expect texts to explain things which may have been clear to the original audience but which mystify us today. But Christian theologians have long recognized that a text can communicate its message without necessarily answering EVERY question of the reader or addressing every possible ambiguity of the ancient language. So your honest statement is shared by all kinds of Bible readers (as well as readers of ancient Homeric texts, the Upanishads, T'ang Sung's Pilgrimage, and you name it!)

Leviticus 13:47, 14:33 - regulations about moulds.
Laundry tips from god?

For those who may have been lost with that comment (and I realize that you understood my jest) I was being tongue-in-cheek to have some fun. If you see some problem in Torah regulations concerning the containment of mold infestations on clothing, food, and household articles, I would need to know the specifics. (Suffice it to say that allowing molds to grow in some areas of the world---even America's southern states---can quickly contaminate an entire house and render it unfit for human habitation. Indeed, the risk is so great in some of the warmer climes of the USA that home owners' insurance policies specifically refuse coverage for damage due to molds. Some of those molds are downright deadly, especially for compromised respiratory systems.)

The thread is about misconceptions of evolution - I think it is not too far a stretch to consider these things misconceptions about biology.

As much as I love both topics, if I were a forum moderator, I would probably separate "evolution & creation" topics from "Leviticus & biology" topics but that's just me.

If you don't understand biology, then you can't understand evolution.

I most definitely agree. (And I also would state the converse: If you don't understand evolution, then you can't competently understand biology. But I well realize that that fact will provoke many of my Bible-affirming evangelical Christian brethren to wailing and gnashing of teeth! Many (perhaps even most, at some time in their lives) Bible-believing Christians tend to have a very hard time separating traditions about what the Bible says from what the Biblical text ACTUALLY says. That is, for examples, many have been told by their pastors and church authorities from an early age that:

• YOM in Genesis 1 absolutely must refer to a 24-hour day
• the universe can't be more than 6000+ years old
• evolutionary biology is inherently atheistic
• the Bible describes a planet-wide flood
• the Big Bang Theory is an atheist plot

....even though these are CHURCH TRADITIONS about how the Bible should be interpreted (and only by some of the world's Christians) and not necessarily what the Bible actually states. So I empathize with non-believers who are appalled (and baffled) at the pseudo-science and nonsense from some types of Christian-believers that often appears on Internet forums.

As I said, I find nothing in the Bible which denies evolutionary processes nor a five billion years old earth. Indeed, that is a major topic on the Bible.and.Science.Forum, even though a significant percentage of the readers personally hold to a young earth, deny evolutionary processes, and believe that the Genesis Flood was planet-wide in scope. Nevertheless, they are willing to be challenged and to learn about the evidence for the opposing viewpoints.

If you don't want to carry on, just say so.
I won't see it as a weakness, because such discussions can become extremely tiring when you just can't seem to get through to people - because it works both ways remember.

I try to check in as I can. And inevitably I overlook some replies and questions. But that's why I started the aforementioned forum. At times the questions pile up but eventually I address most of the more interesting ones.

And I do agree with you that communications obstacles arise and "it works both ways." But I encounter plenty of atheists, for example, who are more open to honest discussion and sincere Q&A than are some of those who claim to revere the Bible. (And I almost never receive "hate mail" from atheists and agnostics, but every now and then I get a "Your [sic] a Son of Satin [sic] apostate and demon-filled enemee [sic] of God and you will burn in hell fourever [sic]" response to my posts from someone who claims to love Jesus. Obviously, just because somebody calls themselves a Christian disciple doesn't make it a fact.)

It can be stimulating and fun to debate in a spirited manner, and being provocatively adversarial can at times help to encourage that dialogue. But behind those externals and forum dynamics, I always welcome those who are willing to rationally challenge my thinking and explore the topics.

Your questions and observations appear reasonable and interesting so I regret overlooking any important point. I probably won't be visiting this Christian Forum very often in the coming weeks so by all means contact me privately if you wish and my assistant will bring it to my attention. I'm collecting topics and ideas from these venues for some upcoming publishing projects.

Your questions are not unimportant ones and I believe they are shared by many (both "believer" and "non-believer".) Some of the questions and their answers require a great deal of study and effort to adequately resolve them, just as for a great many people the theory of evolution takes a tremendous commitment to researching the evidence and biological underpinnings before the concepts naturally fall into place (especially for people who have been told for years that evolution=atheism!)

I hope my efforts to answer your questions have been helpful (and educational for a broader audience.)

 

[Jazer]

No it isn't.
It says nothing of the Aboriginies or the native Americans.
Nothing.
Not one single word.

What you said has nothing to do with what I said. No connection at all, none.

 

[NailsII]

What you said has nothing to do with what I said. No connection at all, none.

Sorry, I misread your reply. I thought you were saying the bible was a history of all people, including native Australians. My mistake.