• Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.

Fundamentalism and Intellectualism

Status
Not open for further replies.

AV1611VET

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE
Site Supporter
Jun 18, 2006
3,855,672
52,517
Guam
✟5,130,754.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
Are you implying that they evolved later, then? :p
Well, I actually spoke too fast on that.

My mouth was engaged before my brain was.

If there were no lions present prior to the Fall, then my point stands: no carnivores before the Fall.

If there were lions present prior to the Fall, they were not carnivores: no carnivores before the Fall.

Either way --- no carnivores before the Fall.

According to the Bible, in the Millennial Kingdom and Eternity Future, the lion is going to be a herbivore.
Isaiah 11:7 said:
And the cow and the bear shall feed; their young ones shall lie down together: and the lion shall eat straw like the ox.
Isaiah 65:25 said:
The wolf and the lamb shall feed together, and the lion shall eat straw like the bullock: and dust shall be the serpent's meat. They shall not hurt nor destroy in all my holy mountain, saith the LORD.
 
Upvote 0

redwards

I doubt it.
Dec 3, 2008
111
7
Atlanta, GA
✟22,772.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
Is your premise. Post away.

Before I continue, I'll add that it is, in general, not my habit to post links or copy things from other sites in order to make a point, but as you invited me to let fly, here we go. Most of these studies were cataloged a 1986 article in the magazine Free Inquiry.

First is a list of IQ studies. I find only the first one to be particularly relevant:

1. Terman, 1959
Studied group with IQ's over 140. Of men, 10 percent held strong religious belief, of women 18 percent. Sixty-two percent of men and 57 percent of women claimed "little religious inclination" while 28 percent of the men and 23 percent of the women claimed it was "not at all important."

2. Warren and Heist, 1960
Found no differences among National Merit Scholars. Results may have been effected by the fact that NM scholars are not selected on the basis of intelligence or grades alone, but also on "leadership" and such like.

3. Southern and Plant, 1968
Studied 72 members of Mensa. Mensa members were much less religious in belief than the typical American college alumnus or adult.


The following is a list of studies of students, who, far moreso than nonstudents, tend to be regularly evaluated with various tests of intelligence and aptitude. I removed two which appear irrelevant, but will produce them if you care. SAT scores make several appearances. Only 2 find no correlations.

1. Thomas Howells, 1927
Study of 461 students showed religiously conservative students "are, in general, relatively inferior in intellectual ability."

2. Hilding Carlsojn, 1933
Study of 215 students showed that "there is a tendency for the more intelligent undergraduate to be sympathetic toward… atheism."

3. Abraham Franzblau, 1934
Confirming Howells and Carlson, tested 354 Jewish children, aged 10-16. Found a negative correlation between religiosity and IQ as measured by the Terman intelligence test.

4. Thomas Symington, 1935
Tested 400 young people in colleges and church groups. He reported, "There is a constant positive relation in all the groups between liberal religious thinking and mental ability… There is also a constant positive relation between liberal scores and intelligence…"

6. A. R. Gilliland, 1940
At variance with all other studies, found "little or no relationship between intelligence and attitude toward god."

7. Donald Gragg, 1942
Reported an inverse correlation between 100 ACE freshman test scores and Thurstone "reality of god" scores.

8. Brown and Love, 1951
At the University of Denver, tested 613 male and female students. The mean test scores of non-believers was 119 points, and for believers it was 100. The non-believers ranked in the 80th percentile, and believers in the 50th. Their findings "strongly corroborate those of Howells."

9. Michael Argyle, 1958
Concluded that "although intelligent children grasp religious concepts earlier, they are also the first to doubt the truth of religion, and intelligent students are much less likely to accept orthodox beliefs."

11. Young, Dustin and Holtzman, 1966
Average religiosity decreased as GPA rose.

12. James Trent, 1967
Polled 1400 college seniors. Found little difference, but high-ability students in his sample group were over-represented.

13. C. Plant and E. Minium, 1967
The more intelligent students were less religious, both before entering college and after 2 years of college.

14. Robert Wuthnow, 1978
Of 532 students, 37 percent of Christians, 58 percent of apostates, and 53 percent of non-religious scored above average on SATs.

15. Hastings and Hoge, 1967, 1974
Polled 200 college students and found no significant correlations.

16. Norman Poythress, 1975
Mean SATs for strongly antireligious (1148), moderately anti-religious (1119), slightly antireligious (1108), and religious (1022).

17. Wiebe and Fleck, 1980
Studied 158 male and female Canadian university students. They reported "nonreligious Students tended to be strongly intelligent" and "more intelligent than religious Students."


Moving on, there are several comparisons of varying student bodies, which provide statistics such as Harvard is, say, 30 percent religious, where as your average state school is 70 or 80 percent religious. I don't consider these terribly convincing, because one might argue that a given school, in addition to being more selective than another, has an overwhelming culture of religiousness or otherwise. That argument alone probably would not account for a 40 percent shift, but nonetheless, I'll get to those only if you're interested in seeing them.

Now I'll come to studies of scientists, eminent and otherwise:

There are 3 listed in the beginning of the Free Inquiry article which I find unconvincing. The first two are studies of prominence moreso than intelligence, and the third apparently can't be found, and so the methodology is unknown. 5 and 6 have a distinctly qualitative bent. Again, I'll list them if you're interested.

4. Ann Roe, 1953
Interviewed 64 "eminent scientists, nearly all members of the prestigious National Academy of Sciences or the American Philosophical Society. She reported that, while nearly all of them had religious parents and had attended Sunday school, 'now only three of these men are seriously active in church. A few others attend upon occasion, or even give some financial support to a church which they do not attend… All the others have long since dismissed religion as any guide to them, and the church plays no part in their lives… A few are militantly atheistic, but most are just not interested.'"

[A more recent NAS study appears below]

7. Vaughan, Smith, and Sjoberg, 1965
Polled 850 US physicists, zoologists, chemical engineers, and geologists listed in American Men of Science (1955) on church membership, and attendance patterns, and belief in afterlife. Of the 642 replies, 38.5 percent did not believe in an afterlife, whereas 31.8 percent did. Belief in immortality was less common among major university staff than among those employed by business, government, or minor universities. The Gallup poll taken about this time showed that two-thirds of the U.S. population believed in an afterlife, so scientists were far less religious than the typical adult.

[This, admittedly, rests upon the premise that physicists, chemists and the like are more intelligent than the general population. I don't think that's an outlandish claim.]

Moving on from the Free Inquiry article, we come to more recent studies of scientists:

An article from Nature, 1998, states: "A recent survey of members of the National Academy of Sciences showed that 72% are outright atheists, 21% are agnostic and only 7% admit to belief in a personal God."

[It is worthwhile to note that the National Academy of Sciences is quite probably the most prestigious organization of scientists on Earth, and counts some 200 Nobel Prize winners as members.]

A 1998 study by Skeptic states: "This same Skeptic published the results of another study that compared professions and likelihood of believing in God. The general public was just over 90% likely to believe in God. Scientists in general were just under 40% likely. Mathematicians were just over 40% likely, biologists just under 30%, and physicists were barely over 20% likely to believe in God."

[You might argue that Skeptic has an agenda, but these findings are right in line with the other studies.]

Lastly, a poll in Scientific American, September 199 cites: Whereas 90% of the general population has a distinct belief in a personal god and a life after death, only 40% of scientists on the B.S. level favor this belief in religion and merely 10 % of those who are considered 'eminent' scientists believe in a personal god or in an afterlife."


Let me know if you're interested in seeing any of the studies I omitted.
 
Upvote 0

Catherineanne

Well-Known Member
Sep 1, 2004
22,924
4,646
Europe
✟84,370.00
Country
United Kingdom
Gender
Female
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
Widowed
1. Thomas Howells, 1927
Study of 461 students showed religiously conservative students "are, in general, relatively inferior in intellectual ability."

2. Hilding Carlsojn, 1933
Study of 215 students showed that "there is a tendency for the more intelligent undergraduate to be sympathetic toward… atheism."

4. Thomas Symington, 1935
Tested 400 young people in colleges and church groups. He reported, "There is a constant positive relation in all the groups between liberal religious thinking and mental ability… There is also a constant positive relation between liberal scores and intelligence…"


Much reassured that of all the dim Christians, we liberal atheist-sympathetic ones are a flicker less dim. :)
 
Upvote 0

AV1611VET

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE
Site Supporter
Jun 18, 2006
3,855,672
52,517
Guam
✟5,130,754.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
3. Southern and Plant, 1968
Studied 72 members of Mensa. Mensa members were much less religious in belief than the typical American college alumnus or adult.
Nuts!

No wonder I missed getting in by two points!

Oh, well --- I'm a member of a much Higher Organization.
 
Upvote 0

redwards

I doubt it.
Dec 3, 2008
111
7
Atlanta, GA
✟22,772.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
Nuts!

No wonder I missed getting in by two points!

Oh, well --- I'm a member of a much Higher Organization.

For the life of me, I don't understand why anyone would want to be a member of an organization that's so horrifically immodest. The whole point of the organization is to be able to say that you're smart? Really?

Though apparently, they're also a bunch of heathens, so that's good, I guess.
 
Upvote 0

Hentenza

I will fear no evil for You are with me
Mar 27, 2007
35,248
4,181
On the bus to Heaven
✟84,089.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
Before I continue, I'll add that it is, in general, not my habit to post links or copy things from other sites in order to make a point, but as you invited me to let fly, here we go. Most of these studies were cataloged a 1986 article in the magazine Free Inquiry.

First is a list of IQ studies. I find only the first one to be particularly relevant:

1. Terman, 1959
Studied group with IQ's over 140. Of men, 10 percent held strong religious belief, of women 18 percent. Sixty-two percent of men and 57 percent of women claimed "little religious inclination" while 28 percent of the men and 23 percent of the women claimed it was "not at all important."

2. Warren and Heist, 1960
Found no differences among National Merit Scholars. Results may have been effected by the fact that NM scholars are not selected on the basis of intelligence or grades alone, but also on "leadership" and such like.

3. Southern and Plant, 1968
Studied 72 members of Mensa. Mensa members were much less religious in belief than the typical American college alumnus or adult.


The following is a list of studies of students, who, far moreso than nonstudents, tend to be regularly evaluated with various tests of intelligence and aptitude. I removed two which appear irrelevant, but will produce them if you care. SAT scores make several appearances. Only 2 find no correlations.

1. Thomas Howells, 1927
Study of 461 students showed religiously conservative students "are, in general, relatively inferior in intellectual ability."

2. Hilding Carlsojn, 1933
Study of 215 students showed that "there is a tendency for the more intelligent undergraduate to be sympathetic toward… atheism."

3. Abraham Franzblau, 1934
Confirming Howells and Carlson, tested 354 Jewish children, aged 10-16. Found a negative correlation between religiosity and IQ as measured by the Terman intelligence test.

4. Thomas Symington, 1935
Tested 400 young people in colleges and church groups. He reported, "There is a constant positive relation in all the groups between liberal religious thinking and mental ability… There is also a constant positive relation between liberal scores and intelligence…"

6. A. R. Gilliland, 1940
At variance with all other studies, found "little or no relationship between intelligence and attitude toward god."

7. Donald Gragg, 1942
Reported an inverse correlation between 100 ACE freshman test scores and Thurstone "reality of god" scores.

8. Brown and Love, 1951
At the University of Denver, tested 613 male and female students. The mean test scores of non-believers was 119 points, and for believers it was 100. The non-believers ranked in the 80th percentile, and believers in the 50th. Their findings "strongly corroborate those of Howells."

9. Michael Argyle, 1958
Concluded that "although intelligent children grasp religious concepts earlier, they are also the first to doubt the truth of religion, and intelligent students are much less likely to accept orthodox beliefs."

11. Young, Dustin and Holtzman, 1966
Average religiosity decreased as GPA rose.

12. James Trent, 1967
Polled 1400 college seniors. Found little difference, but high-ability students in his sample group were over-represented.

13. C. Plant and E. Minium, 1967
The more intelligent students were less religious, both before entering college and after 2 years of college.

14. Robert Wuthnow, 1978
Of 532 students, 37 percent of Christians, 58 percent of apostates, and 53 percent of non-religious scored above average on SATs.

15. Hastings and Hoge, 1967, 1974
Polled 200 college students and found no significant correlations.

16. Norman Poythress, 1975
Mean SATs for strongly antireligious (1148), moderately anti-religious (1119), slightly antireligious (1108), and religious (1022).

17. Wiebe and Fleck, 1980
Studied 158 male and female Canadian university students. They reported "nonreligious Students tended to be strongly intelligent" and "more intelligent than religious Students."


Moving on, there are several comparisons of varying student bodies, which provide statistics such as Harvard is, say, 30 percent religious, where as your average state school is 70 or 80 percent religious. I don't consider these terribly convincing, because one might argue that a given school, in addition to being more selective than another, has an overwhelming culture of religiousness or otherwise. That argument alone probably would not account for a 40 percent shift, but nonetheless, I'll get to those only if you're interested in seeing them.

Now I'll come to studies of scientists, eminent and otherwise:

There are 3 listed in the beginning of the Free Inquiry article which I find unconvincing. The first two are studies of prominence moreso than intelligence, and the third apparently can't be found, and so the methodology is unknown. 5 and 6 have a distinctly qualitative bent. Again, I'll list them if you're interested.

4. Ann Roe, 1953
Interviewed 64 "eminent scientists, nearly all members of the prestigious National Academy of Sciences or the American Philosophical Society. She reported that, while nearly all of them had religious parents and had attended Sunday school, 'now only three of these men are seriously active in church. A few others attend upon occasion, or even give some financial support to a church which they do not attend… All the others have long since dismissed religion as any guide to them, and the church plays no part in their lives… A few are militantly atheistic, but most are just not interested.'"

[A more recent NAS study appears below]

7. Vaughan, Smith, and Sjoberg, 1965
Polled 850 US physicists, zoologists, chemical engineers, and geologists listed in American Men of Science (1955) on church membership, and attendance patterns, and belief in afterlife. Of the 642 replies, 38.5 percent did not believe in an afterlife, whereas 31.8 percent did. Belief in immortality was less common among major university staff than among those employed by business, government, or minor universities. The Gallup poll taken about this time showed that two-thirds of the U.S. population believed in an afterlife, so scientists were far less religious than the typical adult.

[This, admittedly, rests upon the premise that physicists, chemists and the like are more intelligent than the general population. I don't think that's an outlandish claim.]

Moving on from the Free Inquiry article, we come to more recent studies of scientists:

An article from Nature, 1998, states: "A recent survey of members of the National Academy of Sciences showed that 72% are outright atheists, 21% are agnostic and only 7% admit to belief in a personal God."

[It is worthwhile to note that the National Academy of Sciences is quite probably the most prestigious organization of scientists on Earth, and counts some 200 Nobel Prize winners as members.]

A 1998 study by Skeptic states: "This same Skeptic published the results of another study that compared professions and likelihood of believing in God. The general public was just over 90% likely to believe in God. Scientists in general were just under 40% likely. Mathematicians were just over 40% likely, biologists just under 30%, and physicists were barely over 20% likely to believe in God."

[You might argue that Skeptic has an agenda, but these findings are right in line with the other studies.]

Lastly, a poll in Scientific American, September 199 cites: Whereas 90% of the general population has a distinct belief in a personal god and a life after death, only 40% of scientists on the B.S. level favor this belief in religion and merely 10 % of those who are considered 'eminent' scientists believe in a personal god or in an afterlife."


Let me know if you're interested in seeing any of the studies I omitted.

I am going to look at each one and will post a more comprehensive post later, however, I will say that most of the studies that you cite are performed on young, unmarried, college students which clouds the results since it is also well known that religiosity climbs dramatically after 30 years of age.
 
Upvote 0

AV1611VET

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE
Site Supporter
Jun 18, 2006
3,855,672
52,517
Guam
✟5,130,754.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
For the life of me, I don't understand why anyone would want to be a member of an organization that's so horrifically immodest. The whole point of the organization is to be able to say that you're smart? Really?

Though apparently, they're also a bunch of heathens, so that's good, I guess.
Ya --- I gotta admit --- I was after the prestige --- ^_^

(Really --- I was.)
 
Upvote 0

redwards

I doubt it.
Dec 3, 2008
111
7
Atlanta, GA
✟22,772.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
I am going to look at each one and will post a more comprehensive post later, however, I will say that most of the studies that you cite are performed on young, unmarried, college students which clouds the results since it is also well known that religiosity climbs dramatically after 30 years of age.

That doesn't cloud the results at all. The comparison is religiosity as it correlates to intelligence, not as it correlates to age.
 
Upvote 0

Baggins

Senior Veteran
Mar 8, 2006
4,789
474
At Sea
✟22,482.00
Faith
Humanist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
UK-Labour
Since none of the theories regarding origins are falsifiable then how can it negate itself?

Why would you think that the various hypothesis regarding abiogenic origins for life would be unflasifiable?

They are just organic chemistry experiments.

No one is setting out to prove that a particular hypothesis did happen just that it could have happened, that is all that is needed to show that life came from non-life naturally.
 
Upvote 0

LifeToTheFullest!

Well-Known Member
May 12, 2004
5,069
155
✟6,295.00
Faith
Agnostic
Well, I actually spoke too fast on that.

My mouth was engaged before my brain was.

If there were no lions present prior to the Fall, then my point stands: no carnivores before the Fall.

If there were lions present prior to the Fall, they were not carnivores: no carnivores before the Fall.

Either way --- no carnivores before the Fall.

According to the Bible, in the Millennial Kingdom and Eternity Future, the lion is going to be a herbivore.
So God will perform a miracle and instantly change their carnivorous teeth to herbivorous teeth? Interestesting.
 
Upvote 0

iremouth

Active Member
Jun 5, 2009
93
8
✟258.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
Why would I cite the fall when discussing animal behavior? The fall technically only affected man not animals.
If the fall only affected man and not the animals did the tigers kill other animals for food before the fall? I suppose they must have done other wise whats the point of having bone crushing teeth and flesh tearing claws?
This is not in fact the case. I am no expert by any means, but as I understand it man's fall had a direct effect on nature, and a previously peaceful co-existence among lettuce eating lions, tigers and lambs in the Garden of Eden ended up being corrupted into the nature-red-in-tooth-and-claw that we know and love today.
Therefore the fall did not affect only mankind, but the whole of creation.
So man's fall had a direct effect on nature, the meat eating animals which were previously eating lettuce with their bone crushing teeth and flesh tearing claws are now doing what God had intended them to be doing all along, as if this God had some how known the fall was coming, is that devious or what?

I thought the fall was designed to answer questions not create them.
 
Upvote 0

AV1611VET

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE
Site Supporter
Jun 18, 2006
3,855,672
52,517
Guam
✟5,130,754.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
So God will perform a miracle and instantly change their carnivorous teeth to herbivorous teeth? Interestesting.
Wait 'til you see what He's going to do to the Periodic Table:
2 Peter 3:10 said:
But the day of the Lord will come as a thief in the night; in the which the heavens shall pass away with a great noise, and the elements shall melt with fervent heat, the earth also and the works that are therein shall be burned up.
He is then going to create a New Earth out of them.

Now, if He can do that with the universe, a lion going from carnivorous to herbivorous would be a walk in the park.
 
Upvote 0

plindboe

Senior Member
Feb 29, 2004
1,965
157
47
In my pants
✟17,998.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
In Relationship
If you follow the casualty argument then you would know that there can not be an infinite series of causes so there has to be a cause that is uncaused. Some have tried to refute this but have only ended up positing fallacies.

As far as I'm aware the causality argument doesn't show that there can't be an infinite series of causes, it simply assumes it in one of its premises. It also assumes that all finite causes are effects, and can't be their own causes.

All these assumptions are based on thinking that assumes that everything, everywhere, that ever existed, in and beyond our Universe, must abide by the very same rules we see among the macroscopic objects around us in our daily life.

It takes a conviction of personal omniscience to make those assumptions in the first place. How about some humility?

Peter :)
 
Upvote 0

Hespera

Junior Member
Dec 16, 2008
7,237
201
usa
✟8,860.00
Faith
Buddhist
Marital Status
Private
ire sez...So man's fall had a direct effect on nature, the meat eating animals which were previously eating lettuce with their bone crushing teeth and flesh tearing claws are now doing what God had intended them to be doing all along, as if this God had some how known the fall was coming, is that devious or what?

I thought the fall was designed to answer questions not create them.QUOTE///////////


hespera sez...

its worse than that. they have to eat STRAW! Bible sez so. Not even hay. Straw of course is inedible except for bacteria.
 
Upvote 0

AV1611VET

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE
Site Supporter
Jun 18, 2006
3,855,672
52,517
Guam
✟5,130,754.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
Straw of course is inedible except for bacteria.
You don't get it, do you, Hespera?

Straw, in this dispensation, is inedible, has no nutrients, etc.

Straw, on the New Earth, will be different.

I guarantee you, Hespera, this forum is no place to bring your uniformitarian doctrines.

Of course, that's your prerogative though; feel free to do so --- but we'll do our job too.
 
Upvote 0

gaara4158

Gen Alpha Dad
Aug 18, 2007
6,441
2,688
United States
✟216,414.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Humanist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
You don't get it, do you, Hespera?

Straw, in this dispensation, is inedible, has no nutrients, etc.

Straw, on the New Earth, will be different.

I guarantee you, Hespera, this forum is no place to bring your uniformitarian doctrines.

Of course, that's your prerogative though; feel free to do so --- but we'll do our job too.
Let me guess... the straw will have flesh, bones, and the ability to struggle not to be eaten, so that the bone-crushing teeth and flesh-tearing claws will be completely necessary for a vegetarian.
 
Upvote 0

theFijian

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Oct 30, 2003
8,898
476
West of Scotland
Visit site
✟86,155.00
Faith
Calvinist
Marital Status
Married
Zero evidence means I dont believe it till I see evidence!

What kind of evidence is admissible?

PS: - best to just ignore AV for sake of not derailing the thread, except i suppose as a kind of live demonstration of the OP.
 
Upvote 0

MoonLancer

The Moon is a reflection of the MorningStar
Aug 10, 2007
5,765
166
✟29,524.00
Faith
Buddhist
Marital Status
In Relationship
No one here is being intellectually dishonest but merely do not remove the supernatural from the natural.
Would i be intellectually dishonest if i said fey created us from pixie dust and tried to make that stick as a scientific statement?

The supernatural can easily be lumped into a pile called unfalsifiable and the unfalsifiable have NO place in science

*edit* didn't realize this thread was about 12 pages, never mind.
 
Upvote 0

Catherineanne

Well-Known Member
Sep 1, 2004
22,924
4,646
Europe
✟84,370.00
Country
United Kingdom
Gender
Female
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
Widowed
If the fall only affected man and not the animals did the tigers kill other animals for food before the fall? I suppose they must have done other wise whats the point of having bone crushing teeth and flesh tearing claws?

So man's fall had a direct effect on nature, the meat eating animals which were previously eating lettuce with their bone crushing teeth and flesh tearing claws are now doing what God had intended them to be doing all along, as if this God had some how known the fall was coming, is that devious or what?

I thought the fall was designed to answer questions not create them.

Unless you are a fundie of some kind, there is no branch of human knowledge where an answer will not raise another ten questions. Theology is no different.

However, before I dig myself any deeper into the defence of the Fall, I ought to say I regard the story as allegorical, and in no way literal. The idea of a literal Adam and Eve is ludicrous in the extreme, and this is not a minority view; the vast majority of Christians accept it as story or myth or allegory. This forum is slanted in many ways towards a prevalent US theology, which is not actually mainstream. The story of Adam and Eve as a pattern for all mankind is fine. As literal truth, it is a complete non starter.

For one thing, there are two mutually contradictory creation stories in Genesis. Creationists are very keen to accept the Adam and Eve version, but quietly forget the other preceding one, which says that mankind was created in God's image, male and female. No mention of Adam and Eve. That is the creation story I go along with.

However, you are correct. Any lions around in the (allegorical) garden of Eden would not have been carnivorous. I dare say they would have resembled the cuddly toys in my daughter's bedroom; cute smiles, no teeth, no claws.

In essence we have primitive people, looking around them at their frankly dismal existence, and saying, how on earth did it get like this? The story of the Fall is one answer.
 
Upvote 0
Status
Not open for further replies.