Did Gould say the evolutionary trees which adorn our textbooks are based on inference or the evidence of the fossils?
evolution-outreach.biomedcentral.com
I think it's important that we don't fail to appreciate the gravity of Gould's statement...were not all of us taught from since we were knee high to a bullfrog that the evolutionary trees of life in our school textbooks are based on the fossil record? I WAS!Some of us do care, and so we go shopping for better explanations than settling for those all too abruptly and all too often pulled out as strong claims for this or that. Where Gould is concerned, you might keep in mind that his "criticism" of evolutionary trees and the way those diagrams are conceptualized have certain contingencies, such as presented in the following article:
Understanding Evolutionary Trees - Evolution: Education and Outreach
Charles Darwin sketched his first evolutionary tree in 1837, and trees have remained a central metaphor in evolutionary biology up to the present. Today, phylogenetics—the science of constructing and evaluating hypotheses about historical patterns of descent in the form of evolutionary trees—has...
Keep in mind too that where Gould is concerned, he (along with Niles Eldridge) promoted the idea of Punctuated Equilibrium, and he also pushed the idea of Non-Overlapping Magisteria, and those ideas, among others, have to be taken into account when we evaluate the overall work and thought of Gould.
Here's the thing: If you feel that supporting the idea of a literal 6-Day Creation is the way to go, then by almost all means, feel free to support it! But maybe cut other fellow Christians some slack with all of your hoity-toitty agenda about how you're going to expose the alledged "Satanic Lie of Evolution" for what you think it is. Because, that's all it will be---simply what YOU think it is, not what it actually is: an explanation that doesn't by any necessity destroy the Christian Faith.
Once you realize this, you can focus on the real issues (like those presented by C.S. Lewis in his book, The Screwtape Letters). Then we --------that is, you and I--------can work on common Christian ground.
See how that works? That's how it works!
There's one thing that is a fact about mutation it is part of life. Along with adaptation, regeneration, metamorphosis and other things of the design of life.
Man came from the dirt eg, plants trees grass animals microorganisms sea coral lots of species, rocks etc. Humans are walking ecosystems hosting some 10,000 different species in and on the body.
theistic evolution of course understands God to be the driving force behind it all, which would be the answer to your remarks. God is the influencer of mutations and it happens because he wills it, which is no different than intended mic-drop remarks for creationism. You may disagree with theistic evolution but you cannot deny purpose when God is at the helm.
Theistic evolution is even more absurd than Darwinian evolution. It denies the word of God. When did some evolved being become human? How could an evolved creature be God conscious? How could such a being evolve into God's image? What happened to the other beings that did not have God's image and so could not sin?
God is also powerful enough to say exactly how He created everything, which He declares in His word. It is feeble minded men who find fault with God's word because they are not spiritual. "The natural man does not understand the things of God".
I read the creation account and see deep spiritual truth, that is affirmed throughout scripture. I find no fault in the text. God is indeed powerful enough but you seem to think that means the bible explicitly declares the "exactly how" of creation. Who told you that? Where does the bible say this? Do you not agree with Paul's focus on creation in 1 Cor 4:6? I don't recall Paul commenting on the litteralness of the account, but he certainly does the spiritual. Should our focus not be the same?
Man you must really dislike people who believe in God with different views on creation.
It's not a matter of like or dislike. It's a matter of truth. Either people love truth or they do not. God's word is truth. I don't know why people have so much trouble believing God. Some seem to prefer worldly science to God's truth. I am not anti science. I am anti pseudo science such as the theory of evolution and so-called social science.
To understand what any text says, we must understand the cultural context of the society that wrote it.
“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.”
21st century science denies the existence of God. God is far above culture and science. He is well able to communicate to men His truth about anything. Do you have proof as to the date that Genesis was written? If it was Moses, he was raised in Egyptian culture, which he rejected. According to the Bible, Moses heard directly from God. The words "created", "formed" and "made" mean the same thing in any culture. Either you accept that the Bible was inspired by God or you reject that. If you reject the Bible's inspiration, then you have no basis for faith.
Nope.
I see that you leave out the human element completely. Do you believe in some kind of automatic dictation, regarding inspiration? Thats not how it works and can be easily seen in comparing for example Gospels.
There is a difference between saying that it was their cultural language and that the stories are similar.
That's fine but you think being a atheist is less absurd than a believer regardless of their creation belief is messed up.
