St. Augustine on allowing science to inform how we read Scripture

[Vance]

Risen from the dust, just having glanced through these posts, it seems you have done a great job covering the issues. I will spend some time reading them in detail and then responding to a number of areas. It looks like I will be agreeing with much of it, but I am sure there will be some areas to discuss further! :0)

 

[Risen from the Dust]

Risen from the dust, just having glanced through these posts, it seems you have done a great job covering the issues. I will spend some time reading them in detail and then responding to a number of areas. It looks like I will be agreeing with much of it, but I am sure there will be some areas to discuss further! :0)

Thank you Vance.

There's a few more things I'd like to discuss as well. I'll be presenting them as I have a chance to respond to the conclusion you formulated in your original post.

I'd really like to discuss the Scriptural account found within Genesis next.

 

[Matthew777]

It is time for Christians to think realistically. Given that evolution is unproved and unprovable, one should consider what view of origins is befitting of God.
Would an omniscient and omnipotent God create the species and mankind in an instant or would He just set the natural law in motions and wait billions of years?
The fossil record itself is a falsification of macroevolution, given that each species appears fully formed according to its kind, with only variation within kinds. There is not even a ture "sequential" order in the fossil record to reasonably infer evolution from unless one has a preconceived philosophical presumption.
Evolutionary theory is nothing more than the ptolemy of this age. The text of Genesis and the clear meaning as passed down by the fathers of the Church is the only knowledge we can attain as to the origin of the universe, the species and mankind.
Genesis is the foundation of who were are while Darwinism strives to reduce us to a mere animal nature.
Would God create through a process of death (natural selection) and destruction (mutation)?
Those who worship the God of the Bible would never have conceived such a dastardly system of thought!
Keep sound dogmas in your heart and leave alone the foolishness of this world.

May peace be upon thee and with thy spirit.

 

[Nathan Poe]

I'm sorry, Matthew, even when we disagreed, I could respect you, but this time you've really gone off the deep end:

It is time for Christians to think realistically. Given that evolution is unproved and unprovable, one should consider what view of origins is befitting of God.

Because God wouldn't be caught dead doing something that wasn't grandiose and impressive, right? One need only look at the Fiddler Crab to see the total beauty and majesty of his creation.

Would an omniscient and omnipotent God create the species and mankind in an instant or would He just set the natural law in motions and wait billions of years?

God would do whatever He felt like doing. I don't recall Him under any obligation to impress you.

The fossil record itself is a falsification of macroevolution, given that each species appears fully formed according to its kind, with only variation within kinds. There is not even a ture "sequential" order in the fossil record to reasonably infer evolution from unless one has a preconceived philosophical presumption.

This is a pack of flat-out lies.

Evolutionary theory is nothing more than the ptolemy of this age. The text of Genesis and the clear meaning as passed down by the fathers of the Church is the only knowledge we can attain as to the origin of the universe, the species and mankind.

So who are we supposed to worship as infallible here?
The Church fathers for their wisdom, or you for passing their wisdom onto us?

Genesis is the foundation of who were are while Darwinism strives to reduce us to a mere animal nature.

I'm sorry if Darwinism offends your ego -- No, wait, I correct myself -- I honestly couldn't care less.

Would God create through a process of death (natural selection) and destruction (mutation)?

Of course He would. Who are you to tell Him otherwise?

Those who worship the God of the Bible would never have conceived such a dastardly system of thought!

You mean those who worship the Bible would never... well, you get the idea.

Keep sound dogmas in your heart and leave alone the foolishness of this world.

"Sound dogmas" is a contradiction.

May peace be upon thee and with thy spirit.

Probably the most sincere thing said here.

 

[Physics_guy]

It is time for Christians to think realistically. Given that evolution is unproved and unprovable, one should consider what view of origins is befitting of God.
Would an omniscient and omnipotent God create the species and mankind in an instant or would He just set the natural law in motions and wait billions of years?
The fossil record itself is a falsification of macroevolution, given that each species appears fully formed according to its kind, with only variation within kinds. There is not even a ture "sequential" order in the fossil record to reasonably infer evolution from unless one has a preconceived philosophical presumption.
Evolutionary theory is nothing more than the ptolemy of this age. The text of Genesis and the clear meaning as passed down by the fathers of the Church is the only knowledge we can attain as to the origin of the universe, the species and mankind.
Genesis is the foundation of who were are while Darwinism strives to reduce us to a mere animal nature.
Would God create through a process of death (natural selection) and destruction (mutation)?
Those who worship the God of the Bible would never have conceived such a dastardly system of thought!
Keep sound dogmas in your heart and leave alone the foolishness of this world.

Why copy and paste the same thing into (at least) three seperate threads? Isn't that the definition of spamming?

 

[Risen from the Dust]

In the end, Augustine rejected the idea of a literal six day creation and believed that Creation occurred in an instant, but that not all was immediately present.

For Augustine creation is not eternal. It is ex nihilo (out of nothing) and the "days" of Genesis may be long periods of time according to The City of God in Chapter XI paragraphs 6 through 8.

One paragraph of key note worth reading to understand his thoughts are quoated as follows:

If we are right in finding the distinction between eternity and time in the fact that without motion and change there is no time, while in eternity there is no change, who can fail to see that there would have been no time, if there had been no creation to bring in movement and change, and that time depends on this motion and change, and is measured by the longer or shorter
intervals by which things that cannot happen simultaneously succeed one another? Since God, in whose eternity there is no change at all, is the creator and director of time, I cannot see how it can be said that he created the world after a lapse of ages, unless it is asserted that there was some creation before this world existed, whose movements would make possible the course of time.

Again, this comes back to St. Thomas' thoughts on the nature of time -- or, least seems directly related to it.

It seems reasonable that death was a natural part of the lifeforms that preceeded Adam and Eve's appearance on earth -- but that Adam and Eve were effectively "set apart" from death in the garden.

Some would likewise suggest that in their initial phase they were essentially created immortal, being a little lower than the angels in their connection with God. Conversely, after their fall, some would suggest that they were now mortal, being slightly elevated from the animals in their ability to reason.

As far as why there would be such a sharp distinction between the "long ages" supposed to be represented by the "days of creation" in the first chapter of Genesis -- and the literal 24 hour days that are then envisioned with the arrival of Adam and Eve -- some would note that the Lord
rested between these two phases of creation.

Most conservative Christians will readilly admit that it is unlikely that God actually became "tired" and therefore "needed" to rest. Instead, it is supposed that God "resting" might actually infer that he "slowed down" (or perhaps "arrested the pace of the development" of his creation) so that he might experience life in real time as those created in his image would.

Within the Scriptures it is often alluded in some way that a "day with the Lord is as a thousand year." One could take this literally or one could take this figuratively. As a Catholic, I take this figuratively. But either way one looks at it, it seems as though time might pass differently from the Lord's perspective on high, a kind of time-diltation so to speak.

St. Thomas Aquinas, in prayerful meditation on the nature of time and God, was very insistant about the belief that that time does not work the same way in the afterlife as it does here. In fact, they had a special term for it, and would contrast three different temporal modalities -- the ordinary flow of events we experience here on earth, called "time;" the perpetual present that God experiences, called "eternity;" and the middle, less well understood state experienced by those in the afterlife, known as "aeviternity.".

It has been suggested that this "rest" as outlined within the early chapters of Genesis perhaps simply imply God switching his perception of time from the grander perspective (where for him long eras pass quickly like days) to Adam and Eve's perspective (where time is experienced as we experience it today).

Even though I do agree that the days of creation do not represent literal 24 hour periods, I would still be cautious about claming that St. Augustine held this position or totally rejected a literal interpretation. In truth, he has done neither with 100% certainty.

He seems to have, after having re-read his key writings severals times over, admitted that these passages of Scripture are very difficult to undertand -- and that one should be cautious about claiming to understand them either through one's individual interpetations or else solely on the basis of science alone.

In addition to this, he seems to say that we should not be afraid of allowing science to reveal facts about the universe:

a) so long as they can be harmonized with the Scriptures (such as the predictions of eclipes, the employing of physics, the concept of an earth floating in space)

and

b) so long as they do not contradict the Scriptures (such as Anaximander's concept of eternal pre-existing matter from which the universe brings forth endless cycles of generation and regeneration).

Oddly enough, since Anaximander's concept seems to predate Christ's incarnation by around 600 years -- and since St. Augustine seems to be aware of it about 400 years after Christ's incarnation, it seems to me very possible that some of the apostle's may have been quite aware of
it too.

If the apostle's were able to both understand and cast Christ within the concept of the Logos, which is specifically found fore-most within Greek culture, it seems unlikely to me that they wouldn't have heard of these other Greek concepts as well.

Some have even suggested that Peter's resonse to the "scoffers" may have in some way been directed toward the Greek philosophers who were espusing theroies similar to Anaximander's.

First of all, you must understand that in the last days scoffers will come, scoffing and following their own evil desires. They will say, “Where is this ‘coming’ he promised? Ever since our fathers died, everything goes on as it has since the beginning of creation.” But they deliberately forget that long ago by God's word the heavens existed and the earth was formed out of water and by water. By these waters also the world of that time was deluged and destroyed. By the same word the present heavens and earth are reserved for fire, being kept for the day of judgment and destruction of ungodly men.

But do not forget this one thing, dear friends: With the Lord a day is like a thousand years, and a thousand years are like a day. The Lord is not slow in keeping his promise, as some understand slowness. He is patient with you, not wanting anyone to perish, but everyone to come to repentance.

But the day of the Lord will come like a thief. The heavens will disappear with a roar; the elements will be destroyed by fire, and the earth and everything in it will be laid bare.

On the one hand, St. Peter seems to be contradicting the supposed "infinite nature" of the universe as supposed by some Greek philosophers -- it will have a definite end and life didn't "eternally generate" like what Anaximander proposed.

Likewise, he seems to present the creation of the heavens and the earth "out of water and by water" as a fact that others deliberately overlook -- which is what Anaximander did.

He also aludes to the time-dilation concept that God's perception of time is most likely radically different than ours -- God delaying is not an excuse to resort to the conclusion that natural causalities explain every single wonder of creation

Finally, the whole idea of "scoffing" could exactly describe some (not all) athiestic attitudes toward believing that some Diety directly intervenes within the universe -- which is basically what Ananximander proposed when he utterly removed the possibility of "gods" being responsible for things. This is different from Francis Bacon's approach in the sense that the possibility of God or gods being involved is totally excluded from the inquiry -- that everything can be explained by purely natural causes, which is, again, what Anaximander proposed.

Incidently, Anaximander's concept seems to have a modern day equivalent: the "Steady State" theory included "continuous creation." Matter, in this theory, seems to have always existed, and as it expands from the center of the universe, new matter is believed to be continually created to fill the void.

What is often missed throughout this discussion about St. Augustine was his firm belief in the infallibility of Scripture and in its clear teaching of creation ex nihilo (out of nothing) -- which seems to be his most firmest conclusion in regards to the creation event.

St. Augustine wrote:

“God didn’t find some preexisting matter -- like something co-eternal with himself, out of which to construct the world; but he himself set it up from absolutely nothing”

In other words, he adamantly denied that any material thing existed before the creation week of as recorded within the Scriptural record of Genesis 1:

“And if the sacred and infallible Scriptures say that in the beginning God created the heavens and the earth...it may be understood that he made nothing previously”

City of God, XI:6

 

[Risen from the Dust]

Instead, God planted "seminal seeds" within His Creation of many things that would
develop later. As one writer summarized it:

Taking notes.

Augustine saw three phases of creation: the "unchangeable forms in the Word of God,"
"seminal seeds" created in the instant of creation, and a later "springing forth" in the course of
time.

I've briefly retraced where many variations of these thoughts can be demonstrated within the
wrightings of the Greek philosophers -- and explained, as I feel, how he sought to test and
reconcile them against that which was recorded within the Scriptural record.

However, I will explain to the best of my ability that I feel I understand them, the implications of
his intentions in doing so.

Some get confused about what he actually believed, because he phrased it almost as
obscurely as Genesis!

Actually, I disagree with this.

Between all the different writings that he has left, from City of God to Confessions, he has stated
quite clearly over and over again in great detail what he has read, what he thinks, and why he
thinks it.

A simple review of this thread alone will display large sections of his writings on this subject -- and
this has only been a lite discussion so far. There are many more details and philosophers that he
was refering to -- in addition to extra writings that St. Augustine wrote (along with his explanations
as to what they mean) that could be called upon and examined in even greater detail than we have
thus far.

I think, thus far, I've analysed his thoughts and remained as true to what he intended within a
strictly scientific level as I possibly can.

 

[Edx]

Quoting the evolutionary palaeontologist who admits the absence of in-between forms, or the evolutionary biologist who admits the hopelessness of the mutation/selection mechanism,* is perfectly legitimate if the admission is accurately represented in its own right, regardless of whether the rest of the article is full of hymns of praise to all the other aspects of evolution. ,

Not if it is pulled out of context where it doesnt mean what the quote miners pretend it means. Not when it has been constructed from various other setences, other people and made up entirly, eg. What Hovind does.

Ed

 

[Risen from the Dust]

He notes that the text discusses "six days" of creation (which is true, that IS what is in the text, the question is whether it is read literally or figuratively), then he mentions that the text also describes it as being made "all together".

An interesting pattern has often been observed withing the Scriptural account of creation. For example, the first three days display God creating the material whereas the next three days God creates the life to live on the material.

I sometimes tend to think of a photographic analogy for this. I agree, it is a limited analogy. However, upon further reflection, I believe it has merit on a scientific level.

1a: When a picture is taken in darkness, usually a flash of light goes off. This light bounces of the pattern in the image area and bounces back to be captured onto the film when the aperature opens. The proper f-stops and shutter speeds must be employed or else the final image will not look very good. It can be either over exposed or underexposed.

1b: At the same time, almost instantaneously as far as our human perception of time is concerned, the light that enters the aperature exposes the film to the image that was outside the image area. In doing this, a "latent image" is captured onto the film. A proper exposure must be done or else the film will be ruined.

2: Later, the film is taken to be developed (still in darkness) within the proper ratio of developing solution. This, in darkness, draws out the latent image that was formed on the film. Again, if the the developing process goes wrong, the film is ruined.

3: After this, the film is taken to be fixed (still in darkness) within the proper ratio of fixing solution. The fixing solution stops the further development of the film so that it doesn't develope to the point that it becomes ruined. Again, if the fixing process goes wrong, the film is ruined. The film is dried at this time and ready to use to make a positive photograph.

4: From here, the film (still in darkness) is is then placed within the "slide" and the image (which is now visible as a "negative image" on the film), is projected onto photographic paper. This also results in a "latent positive image" on the photographic paper. A proper exposure must be done or else the photographic paper will be ruined.

5: After the proper exposure is performed on the photographic paper, the paper is then developed within the appropriate developing solution. This draws out the latent image and makes it visible as a positive image. Again, a proper development must be done or else the photographic paper will be ruined.

6: After this, the photographic paper is placed within fixing solution to stop the picture from developing further. From here, the photographic paper cannot develop further. It is fixed permanently.

7: You have a finished photograph ready to viewed.

​

If these steps within the photographic process were considered analogeous to the creation account, we would start step 1a with "Let there be light" which basically flashes through the chaos and leaves a "latent negative image" of God's design stamped onto it. In this sense, Christ, in his pre-incarnation is the source of the light.

Although the adversary appears to be called by this name in Isaiah, the "morning star" in a holy sense seems to more accurately apply to Christ, "“I, Jesus, have sent my angel to give you this testimony for the churches. I am the Root and the Offspring of David, and the bright Morning Star.”

In other words, I suspect that the light that was shining in a dark place, just as the Gospel of John apparently says, "The light shines in the darkness, but the darkness has not understood it." or "The true light that gives light to every man was coming into the world." was none other than the light of Christ himself projecting the Father's will into the chaos.

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was with God in the beginning.

Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made. In him was life, and that life was the light of men. The light shines in the darkness, but the darkness has not understood it.

There came a man who was sent from God; his name was John. He came as a witness to testify concerning that light, so that through him all men might believe. He himself was not the light; he came only as a witness to the light. The true light that gives light to every man was coming into the world.

From there, steps 2 and 3 could be God using a combination of supernatural skill within the natural process he set in motion from the beginning to effectively "develop and fix" the universe into a "negative universe" with no life yet in it. It seems to me that at this stage Christ would be purely spirit and not taking any form discernable -- moving alongside and coupled with the Holy Spirit (the third person of the Trinity)

From here, steps 4, 5 and 6 could be God using a combination of supernatural skill within the natural process he set in motion from the beginning to effectively "develop and fix" the universe into a "positive universe" filling it with life that is beautiful. It seems to me that at this stage Christ would be a theophany taking on a discernable "Angel of the Lord" form -- moving alongside the creatures he was creating over the millions of years (much like a shepherd would to his sheep).

From here, step 7 could be God finishing his work and slowing down to observe the universe from man's perspective -- walking amongst the Garden. It is also interesting to note that, unlike days 1 through to 6, there is no reference to "evening and morning" on the 7th day. Apparently it started but the 7th day has not finished yet. I find this odd, especially if literal days are being implied -- becase a long time has transpired since man first walked the earth.

Again, I admit that these are metaphors -- but these metaphors work quite well for me and fits the Scriptural creation 3 days negative, 3 days positive, final day finished pattern extremely well. It also seems to explain the whole idea of an "instant moment of creation" followed by an orderly arranging of it parts over gradual drawn-out processes. In other words, it presents an analogy where everthing is being made "all together". -- yet revealed progressively to its fullest potential by the power of God.

 

[Risen from the Dust]

He then explains why the "six day" motif was there: for the benefit of the general readers' understanding of the process. He said that some might not be able to grasp the concept of God creating all things at the same time, so he chose to describe it instead as a step by step process, setting out the six figurative days.

I may be wrong, but I think I've provided a decent scientific analogy of the creation within the chemical process of developing a photograph -- an analogy which actually mirrors the three stages of negative creation contrasted with three stages of positive creation and culminates with God
interacting on a personal level with the very thing which was created in the "image of God", man himself.

Another more complex analogy of the light of God initiating the creation within a basic pattern designed by him could be that of an hologram.

A hologram is a three- dimensional photograph made with the aid of a laser. To make a hologram, the object to be photographed is first bathed in the light of a laser beam. Then a second laser beam is bounced off the reflected light of the first and the resulting interference pattern (the area where the two laser beams commingle) is captured on film. When the film is developed, it looks like a meaningless swirl of light and dark lines. But as soon as the developed film is illuminated by another laser beam, a three-dimensional image of the original object appears.

The three-dimensionality of such images is not the only remarkable characteristic of holograms. If a hologram of a rose is cut in half and then illuminated by a laser, each half will still be found to contain the entire image of the rose. Indeed, even if the halves are divided again, each snippet of
film will always be found to contain a smaller but intact version of the original image. Unlike normal photographs, every part of a hologram contains all the information possessed by the whole. The "whole in every part" nature of a hologram provides us with an entirely new way of understanding organization and order.

For most of its history, Western science has labored under the bias that the best way to understand a physical phenomenon, whether a frog or an atom, is to dissect it and study its respective parts. A hologram teaches us that some things in the universe may not lend themselves to this approach. If we try to take apart something constructed holographically, we will not get the
pieces of which it is made, we will only get smaller wholes.

This insight suggests another way of understanding the universe. It suggests that the reason subatomic particles are able to remain in contact with one another regardless of the distance separating them is not because they are sending some sort of mysterious signal back and forth, but because their separateness is an illusion. He argues that at some deeper level of reality such particles are not individual entities, but are actually extensions of the same fundamental something.

To enable people to better visualize what this means, imagine an aquarium containing a fish. Imagine also that you are unable to see the aquarium directly and your knowledge about it and what it contains comes from two television cameras, one directed at the aquarium's front and the other directed at its side. As you stare at the two television monitors, you might assume that the fish on each of the screens are separate entities. After all, because the cameras are set at different angles, each of the images will be slightly different. But as you continue to watch the two fish, you will eventually become aware that there is a certain relationship between them. When one turns, the other also makes a slightly different but corresponding turn; when one faces the front, the other always faces toward the side. If you remain unaware of the full scope of the situation, you might even conclude that the fish must be instantaneously communicating with one another, but this is clearly not the case.

This has been suggested to be precisely what is going on between the subatomic particles -- the apparent faster-than-light connection between subatomic particles is really telling us that there is a deeper level of reality we are not privy to, a more complex dimension beyond our own that is analogous to the aquarium. We view objects such as subatomic particles as separate from one another because we are seeing only a portion of their reality. Such particles are not separate "parts", but facets of a deeper and more underlying unity that is ultimately as holographic and indivisible as the previously mentioned rose. And since everything in physical reality is comprised of these "eidolons", the universe is itself a projection, a hologram -- with God as its source and origin.

It is interesting to note that the Scriptures do present God within this light.

"Who has ever given to God, that God should repay him?”

For from him and through him and to him are all things.

To him be the glory forever! Amen.

Romans 11:35-36 (NIV)

If true, in viewing God in such as way, where the universe is simply a superhologram which is illuminated by his divine light even though he is physically apart from us, it certainly presents Christ as the spiritual substrate upon which all of creation is built upon.

He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation. For by him all things were created: things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or powers or rulers or authorities; all things were created by him and for him. He is before all things, and in him all things hold together.

Colossians 1:15-17 (NIV)

As has been noted above, if a hologram of a rose is cut in half and then illuminated by a laser, each half will still be found to contain the entire image of the rose. Indeed, even if the halves are divided again, each snippet of film will always be found to contain a smaller but intact version of the original image. Unlike normal photographs, every part of a hologram contains all the information possessed by the whole. The "whole in every part" nature of a hologram provides us with an entirely new way of understanding organization and order.

 

[Risen from the Dust]

Aquinas discussed Augustine's view of immediate creation, and contrasted it with other commentators view that the six days were literal. In his Summa, he said "So as not to prejudice either view, we must deal with the reasons for both."

I have to confess that I deeply admire St. Thomas Aquinas's schoolastic approach as well.

In the words of Louis Berkhof, Augustine "was evidently inclined to think God created all things in a moment of time, and that the thought of days was simply introduced to aid the finite intelligence." Looking at Augustine's own words, taken from his Genesis commentary, we read,
"In this narrative of creation Holy Scripture has said of the Creator that He completed His works in six days, and elsewhere, without contradicting this, it has been written of the same Creator that He created all things together . . . Why then was there any need for six distinct days to be set forth in the narrative one after the other? The reason is that those who cannot understand the meaning of the text, He created all things together, cannot understand the meaning of the Scripture unless the narrative proceeds slowly step by step . . . For this Scripture text that narrates the works of God according to the days mentioned above, and that Scripture text that says God created all things together, are both true."

And, as I've demonstrated via scientific metaphors above, I agree with St. Augustine's assertion. This could most certainly be true. And, in my own opinion, I do believe this to be true.

So, Augustine did not think the six days of Creation were historically literal, but they were still TRUE. And, again, this is what TE's say.

So do old earth creation and gap theorists. At this point in time, discussions of the age of the universe are basically irrelavent to this discussion -- especially since theistic evolutionists, old earth creationists, and gap theorists all agree that science has demonstrated a very long age for the universe. There is really no sense in bashing young earth creationists in this regard. The point of this discourse is how science can aid us in discovering our human origins -- and exactly where the theory of evolution fits into the creation account.

Theistic evolutionists disagree with old earth creationists and gap theorists in that they seem to feel that the biological sciences have effectively rendered the necessity of Christ acting within the form of a theophany during the creation event as being an overly literal reading of the Scriptures. Most theistic evolutionists do not outright deny that Christ "could have" acted in theophany during this period (whereas some do deny it outright) -- but they nonetheless tend to feel that evolutionary theories have confirmed the speciation of life on earth to the point that God probably hasn't 'miraculously" acted this way during that time.

Theisitic evolutionists also seem to devout their understanding of the creation account with the specific intention of discerning it can be displayed to not be a literal account so that the full implications of the evolutionary process may be slotted within it -- whereas creationists of all diversity seem to devout their understanding of the creation account with the specific intention of retaining the traditional understanding of a literal or semi-literal account so that the full implications of the evolutionary process may not be slotted within it.

In both the case of the creationist and the theistic evolutionist, they feel that they are being true to God.

We do not say that the six day narrative is false. It is true in the sense that it truly conveys what God intended it to convey, a method for us to grasp and hold on to the great truths of God's Creative work. If it is not MEANT to be literal history, then it is still TRUE even if it is not literal history.

As has been pointed out by others, the creation account, in one sense, is obviously written with the intentions of reducing the claims of the pagans that the earth, sun and moon were Gods. In the Hebrew cosmology, there is one God from which all other things owe their existence. This is a clear insight that many creationists could beneifit from knowing -- and should know to be frank. These are Hebrew idioms used to glorify God.

Yet, as has been pointed out by the apostles and prophets, the Scriptures have also been recorded with the specific intention of revealing Christ at work all along. In this sense, this is perhaps even more important than the first point noted above -- although the two are co-related to a great extent as well. Not only are the Hebrew idioms used to glorify God by setting him apart from his creation, they also, in accordance with the Christian Scriptures, glorify Christ as God at work since the beginning.

That these two are assumed within Judeo-Christian theology are a given. However, as most will note, many Scriptures seem to speak on multiple levels -- and often in threes. This leaves us with a third question in addition to the previous two points -- are the Hebrew Scriptures within the creation account also meant to imply some historical reality?

In the sense of some historical veracity, there may yet be more to the creation pattern that meets the eye -- a pattern which may in fact mirror the evidence of the earth's development as relayed through the fossil record.

Many claim that the theory of evolution is unbaised science -- and to much extent they believe this to be true. However, a nagging feeling still comes over people when they look at whatever anthropocentric bias may actually be clinging to any theory.

It is certainly true to say that certain aspects of creationism contain much anthropocentric bias -- even Christocentric bias to be frank. But, to their credit, in the case of the hard-core creationist, they never claimed that it wasn't biased in these directions. That this is not science is self-evident from the reliance on the Scriptures alone -- or scientific evidence specifically purported to discredit evolution yet add nothing to true scientific inquiry.

Oddly, however, in the case of ID, anthropocentric and Christocentric bias is still very much present -- even though ID claims otherwise. True, it may not be as easy to spot. But it is still nonetheless very present on a more subtle level.

This much is a given -- but the question still remains, "Is the theory of evolution anthropocentrically biased?"

As others have observed, Darwin constructed a theory of nature that, in its every particular, reinforced the operating assumptions of the Industrial Age he lived in.

For example, he saw the same principles of division of labor at work in nature. After reading Malthus, he came to realize that, as in human society, populations bred beyond their means, leaving survivors and losers in the effort to exist.

Likewise, in the first volume of A System of Synthetic Philosophy, entitled First Principles (1862), Spencer argued that all phenomena could be explained in terms of a lengthy process of evolution in things. This account of evolution provided a complete and 'predetermined' structure for the kind of variation noted by Darwin -- and Darwin's respect for Spencer was significant.

Darwin's descriptions relied heavily on machine imagery. He came to personally view livings things as the sum total of “parts assembled”. Even the origins of life were seen within the biological equivalent of nature’s assembly line (morphology from micro-organisms straight up to humanity).

In short, as others have pointed out, Darwin borrowed just about everything he experienced from the popular culture of his time and transposed them onto nature.

Obviously the theory has changed since Darwins' time.

Admittedly, many contemporary biologists have contended that evolution is less a matter of species competing for inadequate food supplies than a question of species evolving so as to increase the total food supply -- and thereby there own share of that supply. In effect, entire ecosystems evolve, not just individual species -- it is in the total energy flow through an environment in all its aspects that shapes evolution. Individual species cannot survive by themselves, but only on a network of other species.

For example, as trees with more effective transevaporation evolve in a given locale, rainfall will increase more in that locale than in the biosphere as a whole. These trees and their enlarged rainfall constitute a small-scale fluctuation which will be magnified with time. The enhanced local rainfall will lead to the spead of the ecosystem, still more rainfall, and eventually a general shift in climate not only locally but globally.

Specific shifts can be sustained only if a large number of species evolve more or less simultaneously.

For example, the development of grass greatly depleted atmospheric carbon dioxide -- the effects of which would have been disastrous had it not been for the development of large grass-eaters (that metabolize the grass, producing carbon dioxide as a by-product and returning it to the atmosphere).

Similarly, flowering plants could not evolve without the simultaneous development of bees and butterflies to pollinate them. Such simultaneous evolutions are not as mysterious as some would claim -- those local ecosystems whose species tend to increase the overall energy tend to grow, while those that don't simply tend to perish or stagnate.

A competition does indeed exist, but it is a competition among local ecosystems to enlarge energy flows, rather than fight over existing flows: it naturally leads to environmental changes that favor the further development of life.

I confess that evolution is no longer percieved within the 19th century concept of linear progress -- the assembly line of life if you will. Rather, it seems to be a long-term tendency and a trend. Yet it still in no way precludes crisis and lengthy setbacks. In fact, such crisis seem to be an unavoidable part of evolution. Although life continues to expand, it has also suffered repeated crisis and mass extinctions which continue to occur when one global ecosystem has reached its limits and collapses.

Yes. Obviously the theory has changed since Darwins' time. Yet, to some extent, people are still consistently seeing a pattern where our origins of life are seen within the similar context of the biological equivalent of the scientific method. In other words, the theory of evolution seems to be a mirror image of the scientific method broadcast over the origins of species -- noting an analogy between "trial and error" in contrast to "prediction and modification" -- which is exactly how some view the theory.

More to the point, it could be claimed that life is just like one big experiment -- which is exactly how a scientifically minded person might view the origins of all species on earth. In other words, for some people, ascribing God's creative process to purely evolutionary methods seem to render the divine within the context of the Great Experimenter -- albeit, an experimenter who apparently already knew the outcome of the experiment.

In the end, taking any stand against the claims of evolution could also be seen as taking a stand against the scientific method itself. And, in so far as the theistic evolutionist is concerned, taking any stand against the claims of the theory of evolution could also be seen as taking a stand against God himself -- or at least a denial of how God worked in the past.

 

[Risen from the Dust]

Looking through some history of the of the more recent emergence of ID concepts, it seems as
though the following connections can be made:

Creation Science emerges about 40 years ago (at least in the form we see today) and teaches a
literal interpretation of the Genesis account. It is not science but an attempt to counter evolutionary
thinking. No new scientific discoveries are added to scientific thinking by employing Creation
Science. In their arguments, they often incorporate ideas which are very similar to the basic outline
as proposed by ID.

Evolutionary thinkers (both athiest and those of a religious nature) counter back against Creation
Science with many facts which can be easily demonstrated in lab or in nature. But one area within
evolutionary thinking causes concern within the more religeously minded scientists of the world:
dysteleology: as formulated by Ernst Haeckel, the doctrine of purposelessness in nature. It points
to a purposelessness in natural structures, as manifested by the existence of vestigial or
nonfunctional organs or parts.

It is interesting to note that Haeckel hypothesized, described and named, hypothetical ancestral
micro-organisms that have not been found and almost certainly do not exist. His concept of
recapitulation has been disproved. Haeckel did not support "survival of the fittest" instead
believing in a Lamarckian inheritance of acquired characteristics. On top of picking the wrong
theories to support, he was caught using doctored data in some of his papers. He wasn't an
evolutionist in the sense that Charles Darwin was. Even though he is a favorite target of Creation
Scientists seeking to discredit the theory of evolution, Haeckel's influence on the theory of
evolution is neglegent to non-existant as far as I'm able to discern.

Having said that, some evolutionary thinkers have continued on with revised versions of Haeckel's
concept of dysteleology. For example, Stephen Jay Gould, Richard Dawkins, and Francisco
Ayala have all expressed some form of dysteleology within their own biological studies. In
countering recent Creation Science claims about intelligent designs found within nature, they often
interpret "intelligent design" as meaning "optimal design" -- which isn't the same thing as far as I
can tell.

For example, in place of "How specifically can an existing structure be improved?" the question
instead becomes, "What sort of God would create a structure like that?" Darwin, for instance,
thought there was just "too much misery in the world" to accept design: "I cannot persuade myself
that a beneficent and omnipotent God would have designedly created the Ichneumonidae with the
express intention of their feeding within the living bodies of Caterpillars, or that a cat should play
with mice." Other examples he pointed to included "ants making slaves" and "the young cuckoo
ejecting its foster-brother." The problem of suboptimal design is thus sometimes transformed into
the problem of evil.

In response to this, ID suddenly becomes more popular in this regard because it attempts to
counter a philosophical mindset amongst certain evolutionary thinkers that this purposeless found
within nature indicates there is no designer or God. It should be noted that ID has only recently
made a big come back within the last 10 to 15 years or so, although its basic premise can be
traced back for thousands of years in one form or another.

If this information is correct, then I suppose when Creation Scientists stop trying to get Creation
taught in schools, then some evolutionary biologists might stop attempting to use dysteleology to
indicate there is no God -- and some might not. If this happens, then ID will probably lose its
recent resurgence in popularity.

It should be admitted that most biologists have concluded that the proponents of intelligent design
display either ignorance or deliberate misrepresentation of evolutionary science. Yet their
proposals are getting a hearing in some political and educational circles and are currently the
subject of a debate in many places. Having said that, I don't think the debate is going to end any
time soon. Unfortunately, this will more than likely continue to spill into the realm of science before
anything is resolved

 

[Risen from the Dust]

I think the challenge for theistic evolutionists is not so much try to render the creation account to a
"non-literal yet still true" descriptiuve process -- but, rather to attempt to wrench the theory from
the atheistic materialist mind-set that is populalrly portrayed in the media by (the late) Gould and
Dawkins that it somehow proves God doesn't exist.

On the one hand, in the negative sense, rendering it to "non-literal yet still true" descriptiuve
process may simply be quite wrong. Agreeing with St. Augustine, I confess that we (we as in
"none of us") really know for sure what went on back then -- although we all like to think that we
are correct.

On the other hand, in the positive sense, attempting to wrench the theory from the atheistic
materialist mind set that it somehow proves God doesn't exist may actually open the theory to new
and exciting new discoveries. Instead of the traditional survival of the fittest mentality, perhaps a
more co-dependent or even symbiotic view of evolution could be introduced by theistic
evolutionists.

I will admit that having first come across the concept of theistic evolution, I was a bit puzzled. In
my own mind, having been more familiar with atheistic writers of the subject, it seemed to me that
embracing evolution also involved embracing dystileology and similar concepts. While I now
know that this is not true, I am nonetheless still concerned that theistic evolutionists do not make a
more concerted effort to distance themselves "philisophically" from atheistic evolutionists.

One often sees both atheistic evolutionists and theistic evolutionists banding together to
vociferously debate creationists of all sorts -- which presents a mixed message to those trying to
make sense of it all. Like it or not, right or wrong, in minds of many people viewing this, evolution
= atheism. I thinks its time to change that for the better with respect to athiestic evolutionists who
truly believe that evolution is the process by which God created life.

As far as more symbiotic and co-dependent views of evolution are concerned, I guess I picture
one person: the late Pope John Paul II.

In his talk to the Pontifical Academy of Sciences, the pope reportedly stated that evolution is
"more than a hypothesis." At first, some critics of evolution argued that the pope was mistranslated
into English here. What he really said, they argued, was that "new knowledge has led to the
recognition of more than one hypothesis in the theory of evolution."Even the English language
edition of the Vatican's newspaper, L'Osservatore Romano, seemed to concur, until a corrected
translation was published. John Paul II did say evolution was "more than a hypothesis,"
according to the paper.

In the speech, the Pope makes clear that he understood the difference between evolution (the
highly probable fact) and the mechanism for evolution (a matter of hot dispute among scientists).
John Paul II said, “And, to tell the truth, rather than the theory of evolution, we should speak of
several theories of evolution.” He recognized that there were “different explanations advanced for
the mechanism of evolution” and different “philosophies” upon which the theory of evolution is
based.

The philosophy out of bounds to Catholics, the pope indicated, is one which is “materialist” and
which denies the possibility that man “was created in the image and likeness of God.” Human
dignity, the pope suggested, cannot be reconciled with such a “reductionist” philosophy. Thus, as
with Pius XII, the critical teaching of the Church is that God infuses souls into man -- regardless of
what process he might have used to create our physical bodies. Science, the Pope insisted, can
never identify for us “the moment of the transition into the spiritual” -- that is a matter exclusively
with the magesterium of religion.

Most scientists would be content to let Pope John II have the “ensoulment” theory and walk away
happy. Not Richard Dawkins, however. In an essay on the Pope’s evolution message called
“You Can’t Have it Both Ways” the controversy-loving biologist accused Pope Paul II of
“casuistical double-talk” and “obscurantism.” Dawkins took issue with the pope’s declaring
off-limits theories suggesting that the human mind is an evolutionary product. In his address the
Pope said: "If the human body takes its origin from pre-existent living matter, the spiritual soul is
immediately created by God…Consequently, theories of evolution which…consider the mind as
emerging from the forces of living matter, or as a mere epiphenomenon of this matter, are
incompatible with the truth about man."

In his essay, Dawkins paraphrased the Pope’s statement: “In plain language, there came a
moment in the evolution of hominids when God intervened and injected a human soul into a
previously animal lineage.” Dawkins expresses mock curiosity as to when God jumped into the
evolution picture: “When? A million years ago? Two million years ago? Between Homo erectus
and Homo sapiens? Between ‘archaic’ Homo sapiens and H. sapiens sapiens?”

Clearly, Dawkins finds the divine intervention implausible. He suggests that the ensoulment
theory becomes a necessary part of Catholic theology in order to sustain the important
distinction between species in Catholic morality. It is fine for a Catholic to eat meat,
Dawkins notes, but “abortion and euthanasia are murder because human life is involved.”

Dawkins contends that evolution tells us that there is no “great gulf between Homo sapiens and
the rest of the animal kingdom.” The Pope’s insistence to the contrary is, in the biologist’s
opinion, “an antievolutionary intrusion into the domain of science.”

Dawkins makes no secret of his distain for the distinction so critical to the Pope Paul’s 1996
speech on evolution:

I suppose it is gratifying to have the pope as an ally in the struggle against fundamentalist
creationism. It is certainly amusing to see the rug pulled out from under the feet of Catholic
creationists such as Michael Behe. Even so, given a choice between honest-to-goodness
fundamentalism on the one hand, and the obscurantist, disingenuous doublethink of the Roman
Catholic Church on the other, I know which I prefer.

 

[Risen from the Dust]

Finally, in regards to St. Augustine, it has been often supposed that if St. Augustine were alive today, that he would be a theistic evolutionist -- or was he in the past? Since I don't know for sure, I will agree that this is certainly a strong possibility in the former case -- but I'd disagree with the latter case.

However, in being fair, it seems to me that, just as creationists have often abused the early fathers in their defence of creation, many theistic evolutionists likewise abuse St. Augustine by presuming how he would think in our modern day.

St. Augustine in the "De Doctrinâ Christianâ" (begun in 397 and ended in 426) gives us a genuine treatise of exegesis, historically the first (for St. Jerome appears to have written rather as a controversialist).

Several times St. Augustine attempted a commentary on Genesis:

For example, the great work "De Genesi ad litteram" was composed from 401 to 415.

Likewise, The "Enarrationes in Psalmos" are a masterpiece of popular eloquence -- with a swing and a warmth to them which are inimitable.

On the "New Testament" he wrote both the "De Sermone Dei in Monte" (during his priestly ministry) and the "De Consensu Evangelistarum" (Harmony of the Gospels -- 400).

Also included are the Homilies on St. John (416), generally classed among the chief works of Augustine.

In addition to this, The Exposition of the Epistle to the Galatians" (324) could be included among others.
​

However, the most remarkable of his Scriptural works illustrate either a theory of exegesis (one generally approved) which delights in finding mystical or allegorical interpretations, or the style of preaching which is founded on that view.

His strictly exegetical work is far from equalling in scientific value that of St. Jerome. As pointed out earlier, his knowledge of the Scriptural languages was apparently insufficient -- he read Greek with difficulty; and as for Hebrew, all that we can gather from the studies of Schanz and Rottmanner is that he was familiar with Punic, a language allied to Hebrew.

Moreover, the two grand qualities of his genius -- ardent feeling and prodigious subtlety -- carried him sway into interpretations that were violent or more ingenious than solid.

But the hermeneutics of Augustine merit great praise, especially for their insistence upon the stern law of extreme prudence in determining the meaning of Scripture.

We must be on our guard against giving interpretations which are hazardous or opposed to science, and so exposing the word of God to the ridicule of unbelievers

De Genesi ad litteram, I, 19, 21, especially n. 39

An admirable application of this well-ordered liberty appears in his thesis on the simultaneous creation of the universe, and the gradual development of the world under the action of the natural forces which were placed in it.

Certainly the instantaneous act of the Creator did not produce an organized universe as we see it now. But, in the beginning, God created all the elements of the world in a confused and nebulous mass (the word is St. Augustine's Nebulosa species apparet; "De Genesi ad litt.," I, n. 27), and in this mass were the mysterious germs (rationes seminales) of the future beings which were to develop themselves, when favourable circumstances should permit.

Was St. Augustine, therefore, a theistic evolutionist?

If we mean that he had a deeper and wider mental grasp than other thinkers had of the forces of nature and the plasticity of beings, it is an incontestable fact; and from this point of view Father Zahm (Bible, Science, and Faith, pp. 58-66, French tr.) properly felicitates him on having been the precursor of modern thought.

But if we mean that he admitted in matter a power of differentiation and of gradual transformation, passing from the homogeneous to the heterogeneous, the most formal texts force us to recognize that Augustine proclaimed the fixity of species, and did not admit that "from one identical primitive principle or from one germ, different realities can issue."

One must remember that St. Augustine was familiar with the writings of Anaximander. Indeed, many of St. Augustine's thoughts seem to either echo or disaprove of Anaximander of Miletus' concept of the apeiron.

To this extent, as was pointed out earlier, Anaximander thought we were so helpless at birth that, if the first human infants had been put into the world on their own, they would have immediately died.

From this deduction he concluded that human beings first arose from other animals with more self-reliant newborns. In this sense, he proposed the spontanious origin of life in mud (with the very first animals being fish covered with spines).

Some descendants of these fish eventually abandonned the water and moved to dry land -- where they effectively evolved into other animals by the transmutation of one form into another.

Even though Anaximander had no theory of "natural selection", some people consider him to be evolutionary theory's most ancient proponent.

Was St. Augustine, therefore, a theistic evolutionist?

If we mean that he had a deeper and wider mental grasp than other thinkers had of the forces of nature and the plasticity of beings, it is an incontestable fact; and from this point of view Father Zahm (Bible, Science, and Faith, pp. 58-66, French tr.) properly felicitates him on having been the precursor of modern thought.

But if we mean that he admitted in matter a power of differentiation and of gradual transformation, passing from the homogeneous to the heterogeneous, the most formal texts force us to recognize that Augustine proclaimed the fixity of species, and did not admit that "from one identical primitive principle or from one germ, different realities can issue."

This judgment of the Abbé Martin in his very searching study on this subject (S. Augustin, p. 314) must correct the conclusion of Father Zahm.

"The elements of this corporeal world have also their well defined force, and their proper quality, from which depends what each one of them can or cannot do, and what reality ought or ought not to issue from each one of them. Hence it is that from a grain of wheat a bean cannot issue, nor wheat from a bean, nor a man from a beast, nor a beast from a man"

(De Genesi ad litt., IX, n. 32)

Was St. Augustine, therefore, a theistic evolutionist?

I think, being true to his own writings, that the answer is "no" to this question.

I suppose the question still remains, "If St. Augustine were alive today, would he have become a theistic evolutionist?"

My answer is, keeping in line with St. Augustine's thoughts "I don't really know for sure."

Is it possible? Most certainly it's possible -- he may accepted everything about it provided he felt that the doctrine of "original sin" was not compromise by it.

However, if we are projecting other's thoughts onto St. Augustine's writings, then one could also say this:

The theory of evolution did not predict that heredity depends on contributions from both parents in what we would now call mendellian genetics, but this phenomenon became "exactly what evolutionary theory would predict" -- after the theory was substantially modified to accomodate the new evidence.

Likewise, the theory of evolution did not predict the extreme regularity of molecular relationships that we now call the molecular clock, but, again, this phenomenon became "exactly what evolutionary theory would predict" -- after the theory was substantially modified to accomodate the new evidence.

When analyzed by Karl Popper's principles, the examples cited above as confirmations looks more like falsifications -- or, at the very least, that confirmations should only count if they are the result of a risky prediction.

One tends to think that St. Augustine would accept evolution to a point; and that going beyond what was scientifically demonstrated -- in light of the Scriptures -- might probably constitute as an idolatry within scientific paganism. In this sense, the earth itself might even be viewed femininely as a womb in which all life morphologically diversified via common descent -- with the fossil record being akin to an "dried-up" evolutionary umbilical cord leading from primitive cells toward humanity itself.

On another level, at least in so far as evolution predicts that humans share a common ancestry with various animals, one could think that he would also feel that science itself might be exchanging the glory of the immortal God (the very thing in which Scriptures consistently state over and over again that man was created in the "image" of) for images made to look like mortal men, birds, animals, reptiles -- and perhaps even specically primates.

One could also cite another alternative that might indicate more clearly what St. Augustine mightv'e thought in our modern day could probably be found in what the late Pope John Paul II had to say. I don't think St. Augustine would generally disagree with this.

Anyway, having said that, unless someone is interested in hearing my thoughts about the creation account found in Genesis, I guess that's about all I got to say on this subject.

Thanks guys.

 

[Vance]

Risen from the Dust, I have begun to review your very excellent discussion and analysis, and I must say that there is not a great deal which I disagree with in substance, although we might differ on emphasis or the fine details of conclusions. When a spectrum of possible conclusions are to be drawn it is always a bit hubristic to be adamantly opposed to one which is very close on that spectrum.

When I get more time, maybe this weekend, I would like to give my thoughts on a number of specifics. Very good job.

 

[Risen from the Dust]

*This was a part that I forgot to add earlier.

I suppose, in connection with these divisions into halves within the superholographic analogy, one could look for some universal symmetry within which every part of creation contains all the information possessed by the whole.

The first fundamental law of the universe is the law of three forces, or three principles, or as it is often called, the law of three. According to this law, every action, every phenomenon in all worlds without exception, is the result of a simultaneous action of three forces: the positive, the negative, and the neutralizing. however, another fundamental law of the universe is the law of seven or the law of octaves.

The Law of Octaves was first suggested by Pythagoras in ancient Greece. Having observed that the eight notes of the conventional Occidental musical scale were governed by definite mathematical relationships, Pythagoras proceeded to create a whole cosmology based on 8s.

In this octagonal model Pythagoras made numerous mistakes, because he was generalizing from insufficient data. However, his work was the first attempt in history to unify science, mathematics, art and mysticism into one comprehensible system and as such is still influential. Leary, Crowley and Buckminster Fuller have all described themselves as modern Pythagoreans.

In China, roughly contemporary with Pythagoras, the Taoists built up a cosmology based on the interplay of yang (positive) and yin (negative), which produced the eight trigrams of the I Ching, out of which are generated the 64 hexagrams.

In India, Buddha announced, after his illumination under the Bodhi tree, the Noble Eightfold Path. Patanjali subsequently reduced the science of yoga to eight "limbs" or, as we might say, eight "steps."

Kepler discovered the laws of planetary motion serendipitously, while trying to make the planets fit into the Pythagorean octave.

In the 1860s, English chemist John Newland showed that all the chemical elements fall into eight families. Since Pythagorean mysticism was unfashionable at that time, Newland was literally laughed at and rejected by the Royal Chemical Society.

In the 1870s, however, with much more detail than Newland, the Russian chemist Mendeleyev proved once and for all that the elements do, indeed, fall into eight families. His Periodic Table of the Elements, an octave of hauntingly Pythagorean harmony, hangs in every high-school chemistry class today. (The Royal Society later apologized to Newland and gave him a Gold Medal.)

Nikolai Tesla invented the alternating current generator which unleashed the modern technological revolution after a series of visions in which, among other things, Tesla "saw" that everything in the universe obeys a law of Octaves.

Modern geneticists have found that the DNA-RNA "dialogue"—the molecular information system governing life and evolution—is transmitted by 64 (8x8) codons.

R. Buckminster Fuller, in his Synergetic-Energetic Geometry, which he claims is the "co-ordinate system of the Universe," reduces all phenomena to geometric-energetic constructs based on the tetrahedron (4-sided), the octet truss (8-sided) and the coupler (8-faceted with 24 phases). Fuller argues specifically that the 8-face, 24-phase coupler underlies the 8-fold division of the chemical elements on the Mendeleyev Periodic Table.

In 1973, unaware of Fuller's coupler -- Dr. Leary began to divide his 8 circuits into a 24-stage Periodic Table of Evolution. Leary also began attempting to correlate this with the Periodic Table of Elements in chemistry.

The eight families of elements are:

1. Alkalis
2. Alkalines
3. Borons
4. Carbons
5. Nitrogens
6. Oxygens
7. Halogens
8. Noble Gases

The first four families, some argue, are terrestrial; that is, they are heavy and tend to fall to Earth. The second four familes are extraterrestrial; that is, they tend to float off into space. Similarly, the first four circuits of the nervous system may likewise be terrestrial; their function is to control survival and reproduction at the bottom of the 4,000-mile gravity well in which we presently live. The second four circuits, then, are potentially extraterrestrial; they may come into full play only when we live normally in zero-gravity -- in some kind of "timeless" free space.

But if it is preached that Christ has been raised from the dead, how can some of you say that there is no resurrection of the dead? If there is no resurrection of the dead, then not even Christ has been raised. And if Christ has not been raised, our preaching is useless and so is your faith. More than that, we are then found to be false witnesses about God, for we have testified about God that he raised Christ from the dead. But he did not raise him if in fact the dead are not raised. For if the dead are not raised, then Christ has not been raised either. And if Christ has not been raised, your faith is futile; you are still in your sins. Then those also who have fallen asleep in Christ are lost. If only for this life we have hope in Christ, we are to be pitied more than all men.

But Christ has indeed been raised from the dead, the firstfruits of those who have fallen asleep. For since death came through a man, the resurrection of the dead comes also through a man. For as in Adam all die, so in Christ all will be made alive. But each in his own turn: Christ, the firstfruits; then, when he comes, those who belong to him. Then the end will come, when he hands over the kingdom to God the Father after he has destroyed all dominion, authority and power. For he must reign until he has put all his enemies under his feet. The last enemy to be destroyed is death. For he “has put everything under his feet.” Now when it says that “everything” has been put under him, it is clear that this does not include God himself, who put everything under Christ. When he has done this, then the Son himself will be made subject to him who put everything under him, so that God may be all in all.

Now if there is no resurrection, what will those do who are baptized for the dead? If the dead are not raised at all, why are people baptized for them? And as for us, why do we endanger ourselves every hour? I die every day -- I mean that, brothers–just as surely as I glory over you in Christ Jesus our Lord. If I fought wild beasts in Ephesus for merely human reasons, what have I gained? If the dead are not raised, “Let us eat and drink, for tomorrow we die.” Do not be misled: “Bad company corrupts good character.” Come back to your senses as you ought, and stop sinning; for there are some who are ignorant of God -– I say this to your shame.

But someone may ask, “How are the dead raised? With what kind of body will they come?” How foolish! What you sow does not come to life unless it dies. When you sow, you do not plant the body that will be, but just a seed, perhaps of wheat or of something else. But God gives it a body as he has determined, and to each kind of seed he gives its own body. All flesh is not the same: Men have one kind of flesh, animals have another, birds another and fish another. There are also heavenly bodies and there are earthly bodies; but the splendor of the heavenly bodies is one kind, and the splendor of the earthly bodies is another. The sun has one kind of splendor, the moon another and the stars another; and star differs from star in splendor.

So will it be with the resurrection of the dead. The body that is sown is perishable, it is raised imperishable; it is sown in dishonor, it is raised in glory; it is sown in weakness, it is raised in power; it is sown a natural body, it is raised a spiritual body.

If there is a natural body, there is also a spiritual body. So it is written: "The first man Adam became a living being"; the last Adam, a lifegiving spirit. The spiritual did not come first, but the natural, and after that the spiritual. The first man was of the dust of the earth, the second man from heaven. As was the earthly man, so are those who are of the earth; and as is the man from heaven, so also are those who are of heaven. And just as we have borne the likeness of the earthly man, so shall we bear the likeness of the man from heaven.

I declare to you, brothers, that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God, nor does the perishable inherit the imperishable. Listen, I tell you a mystery: We will not all sleep, but we will all be changed -– in a flash, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trumpet. For the trumpet will sound, the dead will be raised imperishable, and we will be changed. For the perishable must clothe itself with the imperishable, and the mortal with immortality. When the perishable has been clothed with the imperishable, and the mortal with immortality, then the saying that is written will come true: “Death has been swallowed up in victory.” “Where, O death, is your victory?

Where, O death, is your sting?” The sting of death is sin, and the power of sin is the law. But thanks be to God! He gives us the victory through our Lord Jesus Christ.

I do find it interesting that the account of creation seems to likewise be loaded with symmetries found within nature 3's, 7's, and, more importantly within the context of the a "new creation in Christ" the connection of the number 8 with that of completing and renewing a cycle into a greater form of energy and higher states of energy -- and that these are literally physically present in many aspects of creation is fully evident by the scientific evidence available.

 

[ashibaka]

Sorry to interrupt before Vance gets his chance to respond in full, but I have some names to add to the formidable list of St. Augustine, St. Aquinas, and Maimonides:

[If knowledge conflicts with Scripture] there is a call for allegorical interpretation of it. The meaning of ‘allegorical interpretation’ is: extension of the significance of an expression from real to metaphorical significance, without forsaking therein the standard metaphorical practices of Arabic, such as calling a thing by the name of something resembling it or a cause or consequence or accompaniment of it, or other things such as are enumerated in accounts of the kinds of metaphorical speech.

The reason why we have received a Scripture with both an apparent and an inner meaning lies in the diversity of people’s natural capacities and the difference of their innate dispositions with regard to assent. The reason why we have received in Scripture texts whose apparent meanings contradict each other is in order to draw the attention of those who are well grounded in science to the interpretation which reconciles them. This is the idea referred to in the words received from the Exalted, ‘He it is who has sent down to you the Book, containing certain verses clear and definite’ [and so on] down to the words ‘those who are well grounded in science’.

That was the Islamic philosopher Averroes, in his On the Harmony of Religion and Science, c. 12th century C.E. Now, I also recall the Dalai Lama saying something to this effect, but I can't remember where I read it...

Anyway, all I have to add to the current discussion is that I don't think St. Augustine would slander anything as "scientific idolatry" except for atheistic theories of the creation of the universe, which are non-Christian by definition.

 

[Risen from the Dust]

Anyway, all I have to add to the current discussion is that I don't think St. Augustine would slander anything as "scientific idolatry" except for atheistic theories of the creation of the universe, which are non-Christian by definition.

Could you explain further?

While I respect your input greatly, I don't really see any explanation or refutal as why he couldn't* possibly think that -- aside from saying, "I don't think St. Augustine would slander anything as 'scientific idolatry'..."

I admit that you separate the distinction between theistic evolition and atheistic evolution with the statement "...except for atheistic theories of the creation of the universe, which are non-Christian by definition."

However, I've outlined in detail (with the last 20 posts or so) why I think that St. Augustine could* come to this possible conclusion -- one possibility amongst many other possibilities he might conclude -- by analyzing St. Augustine's writings within the context of the scientific theories of the Greek philosophers he was familiar with (and analysing within the light of Scriptures).

As noted above, I don't claim that this possibility of "scientific idoloatry" is the only possibility -- yet you've approached this discourse apparently with a sweeping assertion basically stating that you think this possibility is outside the scope of all the possible outcomes -- at least, that's how I've understood your statement..

I apologize if I've misunderstood you, but could you please explain your idea in more detail so that I can analyse the substance of your assertion more carefully?

*Note: "couldn't" and "could" implies possibilities only and nothing definite -- it does not mean "didn't" or "did"; and the usage of these terms are used within the context of "...if St. Augustine were still alive today".

It is a given, as far I've read and pointed out, that St. Augustine rejected the basic elements of evolutionary speciation as outlined within Greek philosophies that he was aware of within his own time -- notably Anaximander's concepts which seems to have preceeded evolutionary thinking.

 

[ashibaka]

As noted above, I don't claim that this possibility of "scientific idoloatry" is the only possibility -- yet you've approached this discourse apparently with a sweeping assertion basically stating that you think this possibility is outside the scope of all the possible outcomes -- at least, that's how I've understood your statement..

It is a given, as far I've read and pointed out, that St. Augustine rejected the basic elements of evolutionary speciation as outlined within Greek philosophies that he was aware of within his own time -- notably Anaximander's concepts which seems to have preceeded evolutionary thinking.

Well, Anaximander was proposing a Godless creation and cosmology (the apeiron). I'm not trying to decide anything for you, but I'm just saying that based on St. Augustine's favorable opinion of science in general I think he would have found evolution and natural selection compatible with Christianity, regardless of whether he would actually accept it as correct. It was the medieval theory of creation, i.e. the belief that God created the universe in some definite way, that he was unwilling to compromise on.

I don't mean to stand in for Vance in this discussion.

 

[Vance]

No, go right ahead, all are welcome to discuss this very interesting topic, and it may be a few days before I will have time to respond. Again, my interest is more in the hermenuetics itself than what Augustine actually concluded as a result of his hermenuetics, or what he believed in other areas. I am not even really all that interested in the degree to which he may have changed his hermenuetical approach over time. But the issues I think are relevant are 1) the degree to which his hermenuetics as set out in the OP are valid, useful and appropriate, 2) exactly what that hermenuetic was and 3) the simple fact that this type of approach was one which has been around since that time. Even if he shifted his exegesis or even his hermenuetics later, it is still vitally important to consider that someone like Augustine COULD develop and present such a hermenuetic as described in the OP.