Where evolution ends

[BobRyan]

It appears that the argument for evolution inside the Christian church - ends at some pretty unhappy places. At least for Darwin, Dawkins, Provine, P.Z. Meyers and others.

During our Rite of Christian Initiation of Adults (RCIA) program, about the third week in, we teach the catechumens and candidates (and any observers who come along without necessarily intending to become Catholics) that sacred scripture is to be read literarily (coining an adjective) but not literally. The difference we seek to instil in them is that literal reading which follows the words of the text without taking proper account of the kind of literature will mislead whenever the literature is anything other than a simple prose description. The moment the literary form becomes poetic, gospel, apocalyptic, moral-lesson story or any of a number of other forms common in sacred scripture a literal reading will not serve well.

And just how "far" can the text be "bent" when it is one of those "myth" categories listed above???

Yes, I think we are mostly on the same page here. Our Holy Church is clear that agreeing with the conclusion that humans evolved from earlier apes is OK,
...
I agree that it is certainly required to believe in Adam and Eve in some
sense. One of the most common Catholic positions I've heard is to see Adam and Eve as the first hominids in the ape to human transition to "cross the line" to being human,

How then does "Hominid crossing from ape to human" manage to "make a mistake" for which you and I must be born into a sinful world - doomed to the lake of fire -- and in need for God Himself to come and die in the place of that poor, ignorant just barely human ape-hominid?

What sort of mockery does that TE view make of the actual Bible?

any ideas?

Maybe Darwin had it right - about just how much of a mockery that makes of the Bible and all of Christianity.

Turns out the Hebrew professors of pretty much all world-class universities agree that the intent/meaning of the authors of Gen1-11... Gen 1- 2kings were writing history.

though they doubt the "historicity" of the documents they at least all agree to the "kind of literature" that it is.

Here is a perfect example

[FONT=&quot]One leading Hebrew scholar is James Barr, Professor of Hebrew Bible at Vanderbilt University and former Regius Professor of Hebrew at Oxford University in England. Although he does not believe in the historicity of Genesis 1, Dr. Barr does agree that the writer's intent was to narrate the actual history of primeval creation. Others also agree with him. [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]
[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Probably, so far as I know, there is no professor of Hebrew or Old Testament at any world-class university who does not believe that the writer(s) of Genesis 1-11 intended to convey to their readers the ideas that (a) creation took place in a series of six days which were the same as the days of 24 hours we now experience; . . . Or, to put it negatively, the apologetic arguments which suppose the "days" of creation to be long eras of time, the figures of years not to be chronological, and the flood to be a merely local Mesopotamian flood, are not taken seriously by any such professors, as far as I know. [/FONT]

James Barr, letter to David Watson, 1984.

 

[BobRyan]

Another example of that "ending place" --

Sometimes you see posts trying to downsize the Bible by claiming that if we accept the Word of God as trusted and accurate truth regarding the historic events - (sacred history) - that it describes then we are at risk of making the "scientific" theory of blind-faith-in-science seem "less than". And of course we would not want to go there.

So then lets contrast "Science" so called - with the actual Bible.

1. Talking Donkeys -- what does SCIENCE tell us about their efforts to get Donkeys to speak Hebrew or English during times when the donkey might be stressed?

What about talking Donkeys that see visions??

What does "Science" tell us about the reality -- trustworthy nature of such an "historic account"??

Does "Science" know anything at all about donkey's and human language and whether or not donkeys can just pick up a human language -- on the spot??

Surely we can all agree that scientists DO know a lot about the biology and the mental ability of donkeys --- at least enough to know about the linguistic skills of donkeys and what they can "pick up on the spot" (or lack thereof).

2. What about God becoming human and the virgin birth? What does ""Science" tell us about their own attempts to get that to happen?

Does science know anything at all about human birth? Surely scientists do know a LOT about that entire subject -- and ALL can agree. Do scientists think that some humans are born fully God and fully man???

3. What about dead people being bodily resurrected, and then being assumed up into heaven?? Do scientists know anything at all about death?

Do they really think that the dead will resurrect themselves on command "scientifically" given that the statement is in the case of Christ - that he actually did die -- (so then no "swoon theory" in the Bible author's "account" of that history.)

4. .What about God's ability to create all life on a dead planet in 7 days?? What about getting rocks, dust, gas, water to produce plants and animals in 7 days? What does "science know about that"??

Does science know anything at all about sterile lifeless rocks, dust, gas, water in the presence of sunlight? Do scientists demonstrate that plants, animals, birds, fish etc con pop out of a lifeless planet in 7 days?

Surely scientists DO know a lot about rocks, and dust, and gas, and water.

5. Daniel's 3 friends were cast into a furnace that had been used to melt gold - heated to ten times hotter than normal - so hot that those who cast them into fire died of heat exposure ---- and what do scientist know about how flesh burns and humans do not survive such a place of heat? Do scientists know anything at all about heat and human flesh and what happens to flesh at such temperatures?

Indeed science can test that out all day long -- and can tell us exactly how "survivable" it is --

========================================

Is God stuck at the level or our guesses in nature (or "science" as we call it?)

Is the Bible "poetic Fiction" because our own scientists cannot duplicate what God can do?

Some have gone down that road - sad to say.

Is science "all lies" just because God CAN do something a scientist cannot?? Do chemical reactions stop working in the lab just because God can raise the dead? heal disease? declare the future or turn a stone into bread?

================================

Can the Bible be married to blind faith evolutionism as if Moses was trying to preach Darwinism in Gen 1:2-2:3.

 

[lesliedellow]

Probably, so far as I know, there is no professor of Hebrew or Old Testament at any world-class university who does not believe that the writer(s) of Genesis 1-11 intended to convey to their readers the ideas that (a) creation took place in a series of six days which were the same as the days of 24 hours we now experience; . . .

Somebody should introduce him to the conservative Old Testament scholar, Tremper Longman.

 

[Willtor]

"... blind faith evolutionism ..."

That's a quote from someone who is on his heels. Nobody who argues from a position of strength uses that kind of talk about a field of science. As a meta-comment: when you use language like that, proponents of science smell bluster.

Nevertheless, I'll bite (using the talking donkey as an example). Consider the following statement:

"There is no physical evidence that undermines the historical occurrence of a talking donkey."

Suppose you brought this statement to an atheist. Which of the following two responses are you likely to get back?

1. We know that donkeys cannot do this because of science.
2. You have no evidence of a talking donkey.

Although you have said, "what does SCIENCE tell us about their efforts to get Donkeys to speak Hebrew or English during times when the donkey might be stressed?" which is more like response 1, I would guess the atheist would give response 2.

Do you think I am mistaken? If so, I think you should bring the original statement to the "Creation and Evolution" subforum and let that decide. Otherwise, I will continue.

 

[ebia]

Somebody should introduce him to the conservative Old Testament scholar, Tremper Longman.

Or plenty of others.

 

[ebia]

It appears that the argument for evolution inside the Christian church - ends at some pretty unhappy places. At least for Darwin, Dawkins, Provine, P.Z. Meyers and others.




Turns out the Hebrew professors of pretty much all world-class universities agree that the intent/meaning of the authors of Gen1-11... Gen 1- 2kings were writing history.

though they doubt the "historicity" of the documents they at least all agree to the "kind of literature" that it is.

Here is a perfect example

That all of Hebrew scholarship is hanging on a single citation from what appears to be a private letter looks extremely suspicious. When the same citation crops up often on an Internet search, always without context, it lacks any weight whatsoever.

 

[Willtor]

I haven't been around in a few years. Is this BobRyan guy a regular, or is this a hit-and-run? Or both?

 

[Willtor]

Clearly, hit-and-run.

That's frustrating. Some people like to talk, but don't like to listen.

 

[SkyWriting]

Clearly, hit-and-run.

That's frustrating. Some people like to talk, but don't like to listen.

So then you could change your intentions.
Speak only to clarify your own thoughts and
grow, rather than to be heard.

 

[Willtor]

So then you could change your intentions.
Speak only to clarify your own thoughts and
grow, rather than to be heard.

You don't know anything about my intentions. Thanks for not assuming.

 

[SkyWriting]

You don't know anything about my intentions. Thanks for not assuming.

So then you could change your intentions.
Speak only to clarify your own thoughts and
grow, rather than to be heard.

 

[Willtor]

So then you could change your intentions.
Speak only to clarify your own thoughts and
grow, rather than to be heard.

Do you even read the posts you quote?

 

[ebia]

Do you even read the posts you quote?

Does he even read his own?

 

[SkyWriting]

Does he even read his own?

I often have to edit my posts.