And the science of evolution is not the same thing as metaphysics. So why do you associate science with metaphysics, but neither with theology? Because it's easy to refute social Darwinism?
Upvote
0
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.
And the science of evolution is not the same thing as metaphysics. So why do you associate science with metaphysics, but neither with theology? Because it's easy to refute social Darwinism?The metaphysics of Darwinian thinking are not the same thing a theology.
And the science of evolution is not the same thing as metaphysics. So why do you associate science with metaphysics, but neither with theology? Because it's easy to refute social Darwinism?
Sometimes you have to make a distinction with broad applications.
The creation of man as a living soul in the image of God opens a host of questions with regards to God's communicative attributes. If you look a little deeper you might be surprised at how many theological issues are rooted in origins theology.
The text is anything but ambiguous but I suppose you can read anything into it you like. It is nevertheless a claim to an historical Adam related by a prophet who received the details from God himself. Believe whatever you like, you just won't get the figurative perspective from Moses no matter how much you try.
It is referring to the origin of the whole human race. That is the clear meaning of the text and not subject to private interpretation. Death came because of the disobedience of Adam and Eve. If it were not so then there would be those who could choose to be obedient and live.
It's amazing how little reliance there is on the actual text when making statements like that.
Again you can't have Adam being descended from an ape and created from the dust.
Being a Christian is about a relationship, it's not a fraternal organization you join by taking an oath. It's believing the promise of the Gospel and the writings of Moses are the beginning of the revelation of this promise. Faith is in Christ and the Nicene Creed is really a very general list of essential doctrines. The creation being a central point and the deity of Christ being of far deeper significance then God's mode of creation (bara, yastar or asaph)
Moses wrote Genesis for the most part but it was later edited by the sons of Aaron, the Levites. Moses was a Levite and they were charged with teaching the law and obedience to the covenant. Genesis was and is attributed to Moses and all the revisionist history in the world won't change that.
Evolution as science involves adaptation and improved fitness which is almost never the result of random mutations.
Evolution as history has never been a conclusion, it has always been an a priori assumption. There is a big difference between directly observed and demonstrated science and a metaphysical a priori assumption.
No it's not, first of all there are no human subspecies as Darwin predicted and claimed to observe.
Human DNA is vastly different then the chimpanzees with virtually all genes showing divergence at a nucleotide sequence level.
I have seen the empirical demonstrations and they make false predictions and representations as a matter of course.
Opinions vary.
The Bible as history being essential the Christian theology and of only passing interest to most TEs and certainly not of any great significance.
Divine Providence is a concept that the world is a giant watch God designed, built, wind up and let run.
When God interjects into human affairs whether we are talking the birth of a nation or a sinner being born again, miracles are what distinguishes God's work. God's revelation to Moses was based in large part on dramatic judgements made on Egypt and the Hebrews in the Sinai dessert.
Without the historical element the Gospel is an empty promise.
I would encourage you to broaden your study to include conservative scholars, and not just liberal ones. There are quite a large number of respected scholars who would dispute what you just wrote. The primary "evidence" that is used to dispute mosaic authorship is textual interpretation -- with a large number of the prominent liberal scholars taking an anti-supernaturalistic stance, denying the miracles of Egypt, for example.I agree the rabbis attributed Genesis to Moses, but there is little historical evidence that he was the actual author. The rabbis of the post-exilic times could not have known for sure who wrote most of the OT.
Most of Genesis appears to come from a much later date than Moses. Of course, there could have been writings of Moses which influenced the writing of Genesis and a considerable oral tradition dating back to him as well. So the attribution could be correct in a theological sense, even if not technically so. Most scholars hold that Genesis as we know it did not exist until the time of Ezra and some have suggested Ezra as the final redactor of Genesis, indeed of the whole Torah.
Ah. So if something is a theory, it is excluded from science. Gotcha.There is no science of evolution, there is biology and how living systems work but Evolution is a theory.
Actually, people like Malthus and Spencer were. If you read Darwin's work, you would know that he was quite sensitive about his work being taken out of context.I'm not the one who tried to apply metaphysics to the life sciences, Darwin was.
It is interesting the way you set up your literal interpretation as the 'one true meaning' while every other approach is a 'private interpretation'. Why isn't your interpretation just as much a private interpretation as anyone elses? It sounds like a claim to divine inspiration in your interpretations which I am sure you would deny.The text is anything but ambiguous but I suppose you can read anything into it you like.
...It is referring to the origin of the whole human race. That is the clear meaning of the text and not subject to private interpretation. Death came because of the disobedience of Adam and Eve. If it were not so then there would be those who could choose to be obedient and live.
That would make the account a prophecy wouldn't it? It would fall into the same style of literature as Ezekiel and the book of Revelation, which incidentally also features the tree of life in Paradise, the Serpent, another wedding and a bride who isn't a single literal individual.It is nevertheless a claim to an historical Adam related by a prophet who received the details from God himself.
You think Moses must have been a literalist like you. Psalm 90 shows us otherwise.Believe whatever you like, you just won't get the figurative perspective from Moses no matter how much you try.
Evolution is a scientific theory at least by the terms of Popper. It's falsifiable ,makes predictions and the observed data fits quite well into the theoretical frame.There is no science of evolution, there is biology and how living systems work but Evolution is a theory.
That's the last refuge of the YEC: claiming that her interpretation is the "Authorized Interpretation of Genesis" that was never questioned before Darwin while ignoring the facts that the meaning of Gen1 was yet disputed centuries ago before the upcoming of evolution theory. Old ages were also accepted before Darwin, so the YEC argument that only modern science forced christians to rethink their views on Genesis 1 is plainly false.It is interesting the way you set up your literal interpretation as the 'one true meaning' while every other approach is a 'private interpretation'.
Yes, it's just so easy:Contradictions can tell us the story is not meant literally and this fact was used in the early church to argue against a literal interpretation of the Gen 1.
The text is anything but ambiguous but I suppose you can read anything into it you like.
[I would encourage you to broaden your study to include conservative scholars, and not just liberal ones. There are quite a large number of respected scholars who would dispute what you just wrote.
The primary "evidence" that is used to dispute mosaic authorship is textual interpretation -- with a large number of the prominent liberal scholars taking an anti-supernaturalistic stance, denying the miracles of Egypt, for example.
And, of course, you have another huge problem -- Jesus referred to Moses as the author of the Pentateuch.
Ah. So if something is a theory, it is excluded from science. Gotcha.
What is your definition of "science", anyway?
What sort of science do you practice in the lab depicted in your photo?
Actually, people like Malthus and Spencer were.
If you read Darwin's work, you would know that he was quite sensitive about his work being taken out of context.
In fact, his own theory of evolution didn't lead Darwin to reject God. Darwin continued to quote the Bible on issues of religion and morality throughout much of his life. The death of his daughter is what ultimately lead Darwin away from God.
Well the word used in modern Hebrew is מַדָּע madda', which they did get from the OT.The word 'science' literally means knowledge but what kind of knowledge is it? That would be the key insight giving us a good definition. Tell me something, which Biblical word for knowledge would you think the closest to 'knowledge' in the scientific sense?
Hebrew Lexicon entry for Yada
There was a time when theology was considered the Queen of the Sciences. Unfortunately astrology and alchemy were sciences then too. This is the problem Behe ran into in Dover. If you broaden your definition of 'science' beyond its modern meaning then it is very difficult to keep all the loopy stuff out.in fact theology in a literal sense is science.
Ah! So archaeology?Mark Kennedy said:What lab are you talking about...is that a dig or what?
I'll get back to this...I didn't say that, I said there was no science of evolution per se. A theory is a product of science, in fact theology in a literal sense is science.
The creationist etymology=definition card is a lousy one to play, mark. To wit, "rock" literally translates from the Old High German as "to cause to move." But this is not what we mean when we use the word "rock" (as in "stone") today.The word 'science' literally means knowledge
I doubt if there is one. The ANE people didn't have a word for science back then since they did not practice science. As Assyrian suggested, they also didn't have words for "rocket ship" or "valence shell."Tell me something, which Biblical word for knowledge would you think the closest to 'knowledge' in the scientific sense?
No, it's a serious question. Mark, you are one of the few anti-evolutionists here who claims to reject evolution solely on the grounds of scientific evidence, rather than religious predisposition. As such, I would suspect that as an honest man, you would have some experience with the evidence you so heartily endorse beyond just reading articles on the internet. (In the same way, many of the TEs here hold occupations in the areas which they are so adamant about: KerrMetric is a professor of planetary science, gluadys has a degree in literature, I have a degree in palaeontology, etc.). One cannot claim familiarity with a topic without at least some hands-on experience, I would think.What lab are you talking about...is that a dig or what?
Darwin's theory of natural selection was based on the following observations (read: facts):Darwin's Natural Selection was based on Spencer's philosophy and Malthusian population theory.
Hominids ARE apes, mark.He was also quite sensitive to the principle of Natura non facit saltum, that is, nature does not make leaps. Human evolution is not gradual if you follow the evidence, we go from ape to hominid not in successive generations but contemporary ones.
I'm sure he was agnostic. Regardless, Darwin attended a Church of England school and studied at Cambridge to become a clergyman. And, as I said, cited the Bible in support of his moral convictions. So clearly, his adoption of evolutionary theory was not motivated by a disdain for Christianity, as many suppose.First of all Darwin's father, grandfather and brother were all atheists. Darwin said he never questioned the natural theology of Paley and others in college while in school but that does not mean he believed in God. He never makes any kind of a profession of faith along those lines and I consider him an agnostic.
Darwin didn't promote a philosophy, mark. He promoted a theory supported by scientific evidence. That some took this theory and twisted it to support their political or social agendas has no bearing on the theory itself.His philosophy was none the less the cornerstone for modern antitheistic philosophies so prevalent in academic and scientific thought.
all from wiki.**These early works demonstrated a liberal view of workers' rights and governmental responsibility. He continued in this vein by developing a rationalist philosophy concerning the natural laws of progress. These views would mature into his 1851 manuscript, Social Statics, a document that stressed the importance of looking at the long-term effects of social policy with respect to the nature of man.
... I don't see how that follows.Darwin's Natural Selection was based on Spencer's philosophy and Malthusian population theory.
Spencer's first book which had nothing to do with evolution or natural selection just barely predated _Origins_ which had been in process for more than two decades. All of Spencer's major writings followed _Origins_ chronologically.I'm not sure what you're saying here, rmwilliamsll. Spencer's manuscript was written (published?) in 1851; Origins in 1859.
Are you saying social darwinism isn't base on Darwin since the work predated Darwin? If so, that makes sense.
If you are saying that Darwin's work could not have been based on Spenser as Mark Kennedy say's ... ... I don't see how that follows.
In 1862 Spencer was able to publish First Principles, an exposition of his evolutionary theory of the underlying principles of all domains of reality, which had acted as the foundational beliefs of his previous works. His definition of evolution explained it as the ongoing process by which matter is refined into an increasingly complex and coherent form. This was the main canon of Spencer’s philosophy, a developed and coherently structured explanation of social evolution (that predated Darwin’s major works). By this time Spencer was achieving an international reputation of great respect.
is wrong, simply based on the timing. Without even looking at the ideas. A closer look at the ideas will show that the influence flows from Darwin to Spencer to Social Darwinism, which owes far more to Spencer, Francis Galton and Huxley then to Darwin's science, see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_darwinismDarwin's Natural Selection was based on Spencer's philosophy and Malthusian population theory.
"Survival of the fittest"
Herbert Spencer coined the phrase "survival of the fittest," to describe changes in society. London School of Economics professor Rodney Barker writes:
Like Darwin, Spencer employed a selective principle to explain social evolution, but he complemented natural selection with the Lamarckian notion of adaptation, and of the inheritability of a predisposition to successful adaptation. His familiar phrase, 'the survival of the fittest', can thus be misleading, in so far as it suggests an arbitrary process depending on the absence or presence of qualities over which the individual or society has no control. The fittest were those who adapted, and there was in principle no limit to the number who might make this accommodation. The struggle for survival was thus not of man against man, but of man against a changing environment.[4]
Spencer's first book which had nothing to do with evolution or natural selection just barely predated _Origins_ which had been in process for more than two decades. All of Spencer's major writings followed _Origins_ chronologically.
It seems that some didn't get the first time then.
however it is clear that:
mark kennedy said:Darwin's Natural Selection was based on Spencer's philosophy and Malthusian population theory.
is wrong, simply based on the timing.
Without even looking at the ideas.
the point is that natural selection as discussed by Darwin in _Origins_ does not owe anything to H.Spencer's work as was claimed, but rather the other way around, Spencer built his philosophy in part on Darwin's science.
actually the real point is that references, studying and factual accuracy matter.
all quotations from the wiki at:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Herbert_Spencer
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?