The Historicity of Scripture from Genesis to Revelation

[Mallon]

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?

 

[mark kennedy]

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?

There is no science of evolution, there is biology and how living systems work but Evolution is a theory. I'm not the one who tried to apply metaphysics to the life sciences, Darwin was. Science itself does not take sides in this kind of a controversy and this fact has had my attention since first taking up the subject.

Evolutionists want to make the single common ancestor model synonymous with science which is absurd. Attempts at metaphysics by scientists are generally doomed to failure like the one involved in string theory. Like Darwinism it has become a modern mythology with it's speculations about a multiverse that has no basis in the genuine article of science.

Science is about mental and physical tools that provide demonstrations and direct observations. Metaphysics is at the other end of the academic spectrum and has no place in what has come to be the defining attributes of modern science.

 

[gluadys]

Sometimes you have to make a distinction with broad applications.

These one-liners without content add little to the discussion. I have no idea what you are driving at.

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.

No TE denies that man was created as a living soul in the image of God. The biological origin of man is not affected by, nor does it affect, this spiritual reality.

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.

Well you have your perspective on what inspiration is and I have mine. I don't see any claim in the text as to what in Genesis is and is not historical. Nor, given the place of myth and legend in ANE culture, would I expect a differentiation of these from history.

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.

There could be. Paul agrees that a perfect obedience to the Law would be salvific. But could be doesn't mean there would be. And observation tells us that all (save Christ) have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God. As Paul also says, death comes to all because all have sinned.

It's amazing how little reliance there is on the actual text when making statements like that.

Another meaningless one-liner. If you have no intelligent response to a statement of mine, it would be better not to comment at all.

Again you can't have Adam being descended from an ape and created from the dust.

Not if you interpret the text as a literal event, no. That is reason enough for not interpreting the text as a literal event. Yet the figure is still appropriate since all life came from the earth and dead bodies decay back into the earth.

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)

Is the bolded part not what I just said? The fact of creation is far more important than the mode of creation. So why not evolution as a mode of creation?

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.

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.

Evolution as science involves adaptation and improved fitness which is almost never the result of random mutations.

No scientist claims it did. Mutation provides an opportunity for evolution, but is not, in and of itself, evolution.

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.

On the contrary, it has always been a logical conclusion. What is interesting is that evidence of historical existence of now extinct species accords entirely with the logic. We find transitional fossils in expected date ranges with expected mixes of characteristics. The recent finding of Tiktaalik roseae in the stratigraphic and environmental conditions predicted and with the characteristics which place it squarely in the middle of fish to tetrapod transition is an astounding vindication of the logic of evolution as natural history.

No it's not, first of all there are no human subspecies as Darwin predicted and claimed to observe.

So Darwin erred in one of his predictions. That hardly falsifies his whole theory, especially as he was right on others, e.g. that the earliest human remains would be found in Africa, that oceanic islands would always have species more closely related to the nearest mainland than to any other part of the world, and so on.

Human DNA is vastly different then the chimpanzees with virtually all genes showing divergence at a nucleotide sequence level.

No, human DNA is not vastly different from that of chimpanzees. If every human gene differed from the homologous chimpanzee gene by 2%, what would the overall difference be? Work out the math for yourself.

I have seen the empirical demonstrations and they make false predictions and representations as a matter of course.

And many times I have seen you completely misinterpret what the studies are saying. If you wish to discuss a specific false prediction or representation, go ahead, but that is getting deep into science and away from theology.

Opinions vary.

Indeed they do. So when you attribute to theistic evolution a proposition not held by many TEs, you are in error about what is inherent, theologically, in theistic evolution.

As you know, I do not personally believe that there were ever historic individuals who could be called Adam and Eve. But that is probably more a reflection of my overall liberal theology than of evolution. My more conservative TE colleagues disagree with me on this point. And that's ok by me.

The Bible as history being essential the Christian theology and of only passing interest to most TEs and certainly not of any great significance.

I don't think anyone will dispute that some passages of the bible are history. Certainly, for a Christian the historicity of Jesus of Nazareth and of his death and resurrection are essential. Not that history in the bible is limited to that one life.

I don't think anyone would disagree that parts of the bible are not history either.

That it is difficult at times to distinguish which is which and to have legitimate disagreements about the historicity of some passages is to be expected and does not mean either position is lacking in theology.

Divine Providence is a concept that the world is a giant watch God designed, built, wind up and let run.

No, that is Deism. If this is the way you have been defining natural process and Providence, it is no wonder you have been so negative toward it.

Providence refers to the ever-present action of God in nature, to provide for his creation. It is not a reference to the absence of God. Jesus was speaking of Providence when he noted how God cares for the lilies of the field and the birds of the air. He was not speaking of a God who simply watched the world unwind, but of one who actively cares for his creatures and also for his human children. God's care for nature is grounds, Jesus tells us, to trust in his care for us.

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.

Jesus tells us differently. In a parable about the kingdom of God, Jesus tells of a farmer who scatters seed on the ground and sees it sprout and grow "he does not know how". The earth itself produces "first the stalk, then the head, then the full grain in the head" until the farmer is ready to harvest. This is Providence. It is, Jesus tells us, analogous to the kingdom of God. It is just as much God intervening in human affairs as the miracles are.

Why do you persist in assuming that the absence of miracles means the absence of God? If that were true, God would be absent through the bulk of history and to most human beings.

Sure, it is the miracles that are spectacular and memorable, but the quiet presence of God at all times is also important, even when we take it for granted.

Without the historical element the Gospel is an empty promise.

Sure, but historicity does not depend on whether an event is natural or supernatural. Surely you are not trying to say that a natural event is not historical?

 

[laptoppop]

Quote:
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.

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.

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.

 

[Mallon]

There is no science of evolution, there is biology and how living systems work but Evolution is a theory.

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?

I'm not the one who tried to apply metaphysics to the life sciences, Darwin was.

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.

 

[rmwilliamsll]

And, of course, you have another huge problem -- Jesus referred to Moses as the author of the Pentateuch.

if you are referring to:

Mar 12:26 And as touching the dead, that they rise: have ye not read in the book of Moses, how in the bush God spake unto him, saying, I [am] the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob?

Luk 16:31 And he said unto him, If they hear not Moses and the prophets, neither will they be persuaded, though one rose from the dead.

Luk 24:27 And beginning at Moses and all the prophets, he expounded unto them in all the scriptures the things concerning himself.

Luk 24:44 And he said unto them, These [are] the words which I spake unto you, while I was yet with you, that all things must be fulfilled, which were written in the law of Moses, and [in] the prophets, and [in] the psalms, concerning me.

Jhn 5:46 For had ye believed Moses, ye would have believed me: for he wrote of me.

or perhaps another verse i missed, you will have to show me where it states which books Moses wrote. AFAIK, it simply refers to Moses and doesn't specify which books, let alone delineate the Pentateuch or list the books by name with Moses stated as the author of the entire book. all these verses taken together show no more than that Jesus thought that Moses wrote some of the material in the first 5 books of our OT, but to make that into Moses is the author of all 5 books is well exceeding the text, unless of course you have another verse that i am unaware of.

 

[Assyrian]

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.

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.

You seem to think that if the literal meaning is unambiguous then it is meant to be interpreted literally. This does not follow. The serpent in Gen 3 is unambiguous. It is a talking snake a reptile. But when we read the rest of the bible we find that what, in the narrative was an unambiguous snake, was really a metaphor for Satan.

Then there is the problem that you discount all the contradictions and ambiguities that we point out to you. Even if it were unambiguous as you claim, the argument only runs one way. 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. But an unambiguous narrative doesn't have to be literal. It may just be a very simple parable.

It is nevertheless a claim to an historical Adam related by a prophet who received the details from God himself.

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.

Believe whatever you like, you just won't get the figurative perspective from Moses no matter how much you try.

You think Moses must have been a literalist like you. Psalm 90 shows us otherwise.

 

[Xaero]

There is no science of evolution, there is biology and how living systems work but Evolution is a theory.

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.

It is interesting the way you set up your literal interpretation as the 'one true meaning' while every other approach is a 'private interpretation'.

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.

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.

Yes, it's just so easy:

A literal reading of the creation account shows that it cannot be taken literally.

 

[shernren]

Come to think of it:

The text is anything but ambiguous but I suppose you can read anything into it you like.

doesn't make sense. Is the text anything but ambiguous, or am I allowed to read anything into it I like?

 

[gluadys]

[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.

I have, so I know that. I have not seen anything convincing. Most seem to assume the rabbis were correct with their attributions without questioning the basis of them.

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.

Textual interpretation is the bedrock of interpretation. Besides there is more to it that just making sure we have the right words and the right meaning of the words. Languages change over time such that both words and ideas change too. If we read a text in English that refers to television, we know it was not written in the 19th century. If we read a text on how to determine whether a woman is a witch, it is not likely to be from the 21st century.

This sort of thing is more correctly called linguistic interpretation than textual interpretation, and it is one of the key methods of determining the dating of an OT text. (Doesn't work so well on the NT as it was written in a shorter period of time, so the language didn't change as much.)

Maybe it is because I have a modicum of background in linguistics that I find such analysis very telling.

Whether a theologian believes in miracles or not would not be very decisive, since all would recognize that the biblical writers did believe in miracles and reported many events as such.

And, of course, you have another huge problem -- Jesus referred to Moses as the author of the Pentateuch.

Just as God did not overturn the worldview of the biblical writers in regard to cosmology, Jesus did not overturn the worldview of his time. In his day the attribution of the Torah to Moses was so firm that it was common to ask "What did Moses teach?" instead of "What does the Torah say?" "Torah" and "Moses" were equivalent terms, and Jesus followed this popular practice.

Similarly, he attributed diseases to the work of demons and did not attempt to introduce germ theory or talk about viruses.

 

[mark kennedy]

Ah. So if something is a theory, it is excluded from science. Gotcha.

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.

What is your definition of "science", anyway?

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

What sort of science do you practice in the lab depicted in your photo?

What lab are you talking about...is that a dig or what?

Actually, people like Malthus and Spencer were.

Darwin's Natural Selection was based on Spencer's philosophy and Malthusian population theory.

If you read Darwin's work, you would know that he was quite sensitive about his work being taken out of context.

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.

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.

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.

What his actual views of God were is an unknown because he never said much about God. He did say at the end of On the Origin of Species that his theory shouldn't upset anyone's faith in God. His philosophy was none the less the cornerstone for modern antitheistic philosophies so prevalent in academic and scientific thought.

 

[Assyrian]

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

Well the word used in modern Hebrew is מַדָּע madda', which they did get from the OT.

Dan 1:4 youths without blemish, of good appearance and skillful in all wisdom, endowed with knowledge, understanding learning, and competent to stand in the king's palace, and to teach them the literature and language of the Chaldeans.


But while we get our word from older language, the modern meaning frequently has no equivalent in the ancient language. What biblical word is the closest to 'television'? How about 'proton'?

in fact theology in a literal sense is science.

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.

 

[Markus6]

What lab are you talking about...is that a dig or what?

Ah! So archaeology?

 

[Mallon]

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.

I'll get back to this...

The word 'science' literally means knowledge

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.
In the same way, when we use the word "science" today, we aren't simply referring to the gaining of just any sort of knowledge. We are referring specifically to gaining knowledge about the natural universe via natural methodology. Thus, whether theology was considered to be a science back in the dark ages (along with astrology and alchemy), by definition (not by etymology) it isn't now.

Tell me something, which Biblical word for knowledge would you think the closest to 'knowledge' in the scientific sense?

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."

What lab are you talking about...is that a dig or what?

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.

Darwin's Natural Selection was based on Spencer's philosophy and Malthusian population theory.

Darwin's theory of natural selection was based on the following observations (read: facts):
1. There is intra- and interspecific competition for resources (this aligns with Malthus' concept of overproduction).
2. Those best suited to exploit such resources will go on to mate (this aligns with Spencer's concept of "survival of the fittest")
3. The offspring of the "fittest" individuals will inherit the winning characteristics of their parents.

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.

Hominids ARE apes, mark.
That said, the theory of evolution has progressed in the 150+ years since Origins was written, and most scientists accept that evolution does not always operate linearly and gradually. Hence, cladogenesis and punk eek. Most of today's palaeontologists and anthropologists today fully accept the non-linear evolution of the human lineage.

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.

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.

His philosophy was none the less the cornerstone for modern antitheistic philosophies so prevalent in academic and scientific thought.

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.

 

[rmwilliamsll]

Darwin's Natural Selection was based on Spencer's philosophy and Malthusian population theory.*

darwin's dates:
Charles Robert Darwin (12 February 1809 – 19 April 1882
spencer's:
Herbert Spencer (27 April 1820 – 8 December 1903)

origin of the species published:
His 1859 book, On the Origin of Species,

spencer's first book published:

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.

all from wiki.**

i suspect that the quote(1st line in bold) above is not just false but backwards.
and in fact, the intellectual principles flow from Darwin to Spencer and not as stated, Darwin is built on Spencer's philosophy. this is the same thing i read in these wiki pages. i suspect that the author of these words is unaware of Spencer other than by reputation or he would not have made such a factually wrong statement.
H.Spencer is the father of Social Darwinianism.
the facts are important, properly handling then is evidence that the person doing so actually cares about the truth and falsity of what he is saying, rather than arguing simply to preach and to testify to his internal state.

notes:
* from: http://www.christianforums.com/showpost.php?p=31238788&postcount=91
**
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Darwin
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Herbert_Spencer

even a few minutes spent double checking your facts and your memory are worthwhile to raise the average usefulness of posting here.

 

[Tinker Grey]

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 ...

Darwin's Natural Selection was based on Spencer's philosophy and Malthusian population theory.

... I don't see how that follows.

 

[rmwilliamsll]

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.

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.

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.

Darwin could not have been well familiar with Spencer's philosophy before _Origins_ so that the influences flow from Darwin to Spencer, Darwin's 1st edition of the _Origins_ is not influenced by Spencer but later editions are writings could have been.

however it is clear that:

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. 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_darwinism

for example:

"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]

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

 

[Tinker Grey]

Thank you for the clarification.

So ...

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.

... by chronologically, you mean when it was written as distinguished from when published. Yes?

Much clearer.

 

[Jadis40]

It seems that some didn't get the first time then.

What really bothers me is the preconceived idea by YECs that somehow we old-earth non-literal 24-hour creationists who don't think that the earth is only 6000 years old are somehow 'compromising' our beliefs because we DON'T accept a literal intrepretation of Genesis 1-11.

Let me point out that I used to whole-heartedly believe that the flood was indeed a global flood, but I don't any more. My position changed based on the overwhelming lack of archaeological, historic and geological evidence. I'm also open now to the idea that Adam and Eve could just be metaphor for the whole human race. I don't believe in a literal tree in a literal garden with a literal talking snake.

Why? Because I have an open mind that says Genesis 1 and 2 could just be a poetic version of what would amount to a rich oral history from that time which helped to remind people that God is the creator of the visible universe, which we now know spans countless light-years, and that our own galaxy is only one of millions in space.

Genesis 1 and 2, when read carefully are, at least to me, obviously different reckonings of the creation story. Genesis 1 has water on the earth from the very beginning, Genesis 2 says that there was no rain. So it boils down to the simple question of science: Did the hydrologic cycle exist from creation or not? I tend to believe that it was, and it was in place from the foundation of the world, some 4.6 billion years ago.

Any one who has studied the conditions on the ancient earth know that the earliest forms of life were in fact from the water - this included stromatolites, to be exact, which were basically just blue-green algae - plant life. The earth's atmosphere at that time was much higher in carbon dioxide, but was eventually oxygenated to the point where land bearing life was possible. In time, this allowed for the Cambrian Explosion, some 540 million years ago, and that's due in part to the process of photosynthesis thanks to cyanobacteria.

I don't think a non-literal, non-historical view of Genesis affects Christ's redemptive work, simply because from the very outset of human history, sin has existed.

I'd refer you to thr pages here, which goes into a bit of detail on what I'm talking about:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stromatolites
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cambrian_explosion
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proterozoic - for this one, I'd refer you to the section on the build up of oxygen.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cyanobacteria - The geologic evidence of this build up is found in rocks...namely Banded Iron Formations.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Banded_iron_formation


Basically, those rocks 'rusted' - and rust is nothing more than iron which has been exposed to oxygen.

A literal 24-hour, 6 day creation simply can't explain those changes, which is why I believe in an ancient earth and a non-literal interpretation of Genesis.

Sorry for all the rambling. But, in other instances, like Chronicles, do I believe that they are records of events that could very well have happened? Yes. Do I believe that the Babylonian captivity happened? Yes.

 

[mark kennedy]

however it is clear that:

Darwin's Natural Selection was based on Spencer's philosophy and Malthusian population theory.

is wrong, simply based on the timing.

Then how do you explain that not only is Herbert Spencer given credit for the expression 'survival of the fittest' but this expression is synonomous with Natural Selection:

I have called this principle, by which each slight variation, if useful, is preserved, by the term Natural Selection, in order to mark its relation to man’s power of selection. But the expression often used by Mr. Herbert Spencer of the Survival of the Fittest is more accurate, and is sometimes equally convenient. We have seen that man by selection can certainly produce great results, and can adapt organic beings to his own uses, through the accumulation of slight but useful variations, given to him by the hand of Nature. (The Origin of Species - 6th Edition, Charles Darwin, Chapter 3 - Struggle For Existence)​

http://www.literature.org/authors/darwin-charles/the-origin-of-species-6th-edition/chapter-03.html

Not only are you using secondary sources you have never bothered to read Darwin's On The Origin Species. If you have actually read it you were never aware of his central thesis being Natural Selection. Furthermore you are unaware that Natural Selection was directly attributed to Mr. Herbert Spencer in the 3rd chapter of On the Origin of Species

Without even looking at the ideas.

What you are really saying here is that without even reading Darwin you can correctly assertain the origin of his philosophy.

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.

Will you now concede your error with the quote, citation and link right in front of you?

"But the expression often used by Mr. Herbert Spencer, of the Survival of the Fittest, is more accurate, and is sometimes equally convenient. "

actually the real point is that references, studying and factual accuracy matter.

AGREED!!!

all quotations from the wiki at:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Herbert_Spencer

All quotations taken from On the Origin of Species-6th edition, by Charles Darwin.