Why do some Christian's dismiss evolution?

[QuantumFlux]

I apologize, critias, I got the wrong impression.

But it was you who said " I'm gonna take a wild stab in the dark and say that you havent taken any courses on biblical study. If you had..." - i.e. "I know more than you and if you knew as much as me you'd agree that..." I don't play that game.

I was affirming that you have obviously spent alot more time proving evolution than realizing its implications on biblical authority. If you choose to believe in evolution over genesis, thats one thing, claiming that there is room for both views is quite another. And when you make a statement like "As any jewish reader would pick up on quickly" you demean my knowledge of their culture and background as if Hebrew culture is something beyond my comprehension. So, hello kettle, my name is pot.

I personally rarely take offense to anything, i suppose that is to my disadvantage because I miss that other people are not as insensative to it as I am. I'll try to do better in the future and I apologize.

 

[shernren]

I am also a creationists, but mutations only have around <5% chance of being beneficial. 90% are nuetral and around <5% or so are negative.

What we often see with the ToE is this: 'Chance events can cause the frequencies of alleles in a small population to drift randomly from generation to generation.'

Then the assertion is made that evolution is not a random chance. The above quote is from TalkOrigins discussing the Random Genetic Drift that they claim is a large piece of evolution. They discuss natural selection + random genetic drift as the two most important mechanism in evolution.

Actually, quite interesting.

That's somewhat right. The genetic drift is random. The natural selection is the not-so-random part of it that directs the genetic drift towards higher complexity. We can make predictions about random systems by dealing with probabilities. For example with radioactive decay (another hot topic - catch the pun?) whether or not a particular atom will decay is completely random, and yet we can predict how long it will take for half the atoms to decay.

 

[Karl - Liberal Backslider]

I was affirming that you have obviously spent alot more time proving evolution than realizing its implications on biblical authority.

Well no. Until I started debating with creationists I'd spent no more time attempting to validate evolution than I did any other thoroughly established scientific theory. What I have spent quite a lot of time with is answering what is for my money the really pertinent question:

What does Genesis mean for me today, given that it's not literally true

Thing is, you can throw the "more time proving evolution than realizing..." accusation, but I could equally make the suggestion that IME creationists, inasmuch as they are visible on these boards, spend more time trying to prove that Genesis is literally true than realising the implications of its teaching on their lives. Now, I'd probably be wrong in this, because I don't know what you get up to when you're not posting on here. The thing is, the same is true about what you know about what I get up to. But rest assured, in any bible reading I do on Genesis, evolution is actually miles from my mind. I'm more concerned with theological messages that are unchanged by the non-literality of the textual vehicle.

If you choose to believe in evolution over genesis, thats one thing,

I do wish you would stop these untrue allegations. I accept evolution over a literal interpretation of Genesis. I do not accept anything over Genesis itself. It's tiresome in the extreme to be constantly accused of making a choice I have never made.

claiming that there is room for both views is quite another.

I wouldn't claim there is room for both a literal Genesis and evolution. But there is room for a non-literal Genesis and evolution.

And when you make a statement like "As any jewish reader would pick up on quickly" you demean my knowledge of their culture and background as if Hebrew culture is something beyond my comprehension. So, hello kettle, my name is pot.

Well, I did make a careless error. I should have inserted "of the time" after "reader". I have no knowledge of the status of numerological significance in modern Judaism.

I personally rarely take offense to anything, i suppose that is to my disadvantage because I miss that other people are not as insensative to it as I am. I'll try to do better in the future and I apologize.

Don't accuse people of doing things that from their viewpoint they don't actually do, and you'll probably do fine.

 

[Smidlee]

That's somewhat right. The genetic drift is random. The natural selection is the not-so-random part of it that directs the genetic drift towards higher complexity.

Actually, natural selection includes everything, even luck. Since natural selection includes everything it really proves nothing at all. natural selection only states the very obvious which is even mention by Solomon: "a living dog is better than a dead lion." That's natural selection in a nut shell.

 

[shernren]

Thing is, you can throw the "more time proving evolution than realizing..." accusation, but I could equally make the suggestion that IME creationists, inasmuch as they are visible on these boards, spend more time trying to prove that Genesis is literally true than realising the implications of its teaching on their lives.

Remember the Sabbatarianism spat here a while ago? Or the transubstantiation argument a while back? It seems that the "plain and simple" hermeneutic is quietly dropped whenever it suits them.

Actually, natural selection includes everything, even luck. Since natural selection includes everything it really proves nothing at all. natural selection only states the very obvious which is even mention by Solomon: "a living dog is better than a dead lion." That's natural selection in a nut shell.

So evolution is in the Bible!

 

[QuantumFlux]

What does Genesis mean for me today, given that it's not literally true

Again, this is where maybe a biblical studies course would come in handy for you. What you just mentioned is the very last step in biblical study, which is bridging the meaning from then to now.

The first step is finding out what it meant to them. And throughout the isrealite history, the 7 day creation has always been taken literally. Even under strutiny, there is still no other way to take genesis chapters 1 and 2 other than literally. You don't specify days if you are speaking metephorically, you don't in our language, and you don't in early hebrew. Like I said before, everytime where yom is used along with a number it is always considered a 24 hour period. To say that every instance accept this one is literal is an unfounded claim and highly unlikely. I'm sorry that evolution contradicts it, but it will never change Genesis' meaning.

Even if you still decide to rule out 24 hour periods (which would be taking it out of context but just for arguements sake), then its impossible still for it to align with evolution because the obvious point of Genesis chapter 1 is to state the order of creation which is greatly different than evolutions order of creation. If you don't believe the point of Chapter 1 is to state the order of creation, please tell me what you might think it could possibly mean.

 

[artybloke]

"a living dog is better than a dead lion."

Very good explanation of natural selection, as it happens, even though I doubt the writer intended it as such, because of course "survival of the fittest" doesn't (and never has) mean "survival of the strongest." It means "survival of those that fit best into the evolutionary niches."

 

[artybloke]

The first step is finding out what it meant to them. And throughout the isrealite history, the 7 day creation has always been taken literally.

So - in total contrast to every other culture around them - the Hebrews alone had no mythology, no poetry, no legends, no propaganda dressed up as history? I don't think so. All throughout Isrealite history, there were legends, stories, myths, and often wildly imaginative writing, wisdom literature and prophecy, much of which got into the Bible. The histories themselves were written centuries after they were supposed to have happened, and are largely if not exclusively fictional. There is even very little if any real evidence for the existence of King David (or about as much evidence as there is for the existence of King Arthur.) Many of the books are composite works - including the Penteteuch and Isaiah, and certainly including Judges, Chronicles and Kings which were not completed till after the exile. There are even short stories in the Bible - Esther, Ruth, Jonah and a fair number of the apochryphal books (Tobit, for instance.)

 

[Karl - Liberal Backslider]

Again, this is where maybe a biblical studies course would come in handy for you. What you just mentioned is the very last step in biblical study, which is bridging the meaning from then to now.

The first step is finding out what it meant to them. And throughout the isrealite history, the 7 day creation has always been taken literally. Even under strutiny, there is still no other way to take genesis chapters 1 and 2 other than literally. You don't specify days if you are speaking metephorically, you don't in our language, and you don't in early hebrew. Like I said before, everytime where yom is used along with a number it is always considered a 24 hour period. To say that every instance accept this one is literal is an unfounded claim and highly unlikely. I'm sorry that evolution contradicts it, but it will never change Genesis' meaning.

Even if you still decide to rule out 24 hour periods (which would be taking it out of context but just for arguements sake), then its impossible still for it to align with evolution because the obvious point of Genesis chapter 1 is to state the order of creation which is greatly different than evolutions order of creation. If you don't believe the point of Chapter 1 is to state the order of creation, please tell me what you might think it could possibly mean.

I've already done that. You have not followed the link to my website, where I consider exactly this question.

All you will achieve if you prove that Genesis 1 must be taken literally, is that Genesis 1 is wrong, because the earth is patently more than 6000 years old and the actual chronological order and timescale of creation, by whatever means, is writ large in the rocks. You can carry on trying to prove to me that Genesis 1 is simply wrong if you like, but I don't think you really want to do that.

Other than that, what Arty said.

 

[QuantumFlux]

So - in total contrast to every other culture around them - the Hebrews alone had no mythology, no poetry, no legends, no propaganda dressed up as history? I don't think so. All throughout Isrealite history, there were legends, stories, myths, and often wildly imaginative writing, wisdom literature and prophecy, much of which got into the Bible. The histories themselves were written centuries after they were supposed to have happened, and are largely if not exclusively fictional. There is even very little if any real evidence for the existence of King David (or about as much evidence as there is for the existence of King Arthur.) Many of the books are composite works - including the Penteteuch and Isaiah, and certainly including Judges, Chronicles and Kings which were not completed till after the exile. There are even short stories in the Bible - Esther, Ruth, Jonah and a fair number of the apochryphal books (Tobit, for instance.)

Apparently you have missed the way the Isrealite history was kept as opposed to all of the others. The tenach is by far the single most accurate aged writing. The hebrew scribes went through an enourmous amount of pains to keep the writings exactly the same way they were first written. I'd go through all of the proceedures but it would be pointless, I will merely demonstrate their results.

When the dead sea scrolls were found we were given a unique opportunity. To compare and contrast the hebrew scribes of today with the hebrew scribes of nearly 3,000 years ago. Almost every book of the tenach was found and when compared to the scribes manuscripts today it was 99.9% accurate. That is an awe inspiring statistic considering the rest of histories scribes and how many different ones we have.

So in order for them to be folk and myth and poetry, they would have originally had to have been written that way. Considering Moses was the author of genesis and considering the rest of the document was written as historical, a poetic 2 chapters can be negated in context.

If it was myth or made up, how could Moses be considered a phrophet, considering your main point in scientifically proving an old earth and genesis is myth, is that if its not, then God was deceptive. If God let Moses be deceptive in his holy writings, then God himself would be deceptive. It would be the equivalent of him saying I created the earth in 7 days with a straight face and then in modern times saying "Naw, I was just kidding, its really billions of years old". Personally I think misleading generations for millenium on end is very decieving. Understand that Moses was a prophet and when he says "God did this" it was true, if it wasnt, then he was a false prophet.

I believe in a literal genesis and I don't believe the earth is billions of years old. I believe that it was created to look mature considering he made everything else mature. I don't see how that is deceptive considering he told us, but I do consider it deceptive if he says 7 days yet actually did it over billions of years.

 

[artybloke]

The hebrew scribes went through an enourmous amount of pains to keep the writings exactly the same way they were first written.

Copying a book accurately is perfectly fine when it's already accepted as scripture. Nobody would argue with the accuracy of transcription. But that's a very different thing from saying that anything within the pages of the book is historically accurate or was actually written any time near to the events they are supposed to relate. Accurate transcription of a novel doesn't stop it from being a novel.

And Moses no more wrote Genesis than Dickens wrote Catcher in the Rye.

genesis is myth, is that if its not, then God was deceptive.

If Genesis is myth, then presumably it was written as myth. Its intention was to be mythical. Would a novelist be deceptive for writing a novel, a poet for writing a poem? This is a silly argument. Or does truth have to be conveyed through factual information all the time?

 

[QuantumFlux]

If Genesis is myth, then presumably it was written as myth. Its intention was to be mythical. Would a novelist be deceptive for writing a novel, a poet for writing a poem? This is a silly argument. Or does truth have to be conveyed through factual information all the time?

What? Lets make this alittle more of an accurate statement. Would a novelist be deceptive for writing a novel and passing it off as the word of God? It is silly indeed, of course it is deceptive.

As for truth only portrayed through factual information, no, but the point of Gensis is historical, it has no poetic hints in it. If you don't believe Moses wrote genesis, thats fine, you can join the few biblical scholars left that don't believe that. I believe you have turned science into your God when you believe the bible to be little more than myth and fable.

You turn christianity into a good idea and good morals. To be honest, if all you want is a good idea and good morals you could just as well be a buddist, God claims to be the way the TRUTH and the light. I mean really, do you believe this about the gospels? that they are myth and fables and poetic?

 

[stumpjumper]

What? Lets make this alittle more of an accurate statement. Would a novelist be deceptive for writing a novel and passing it off as the word of God? It is silly indeed, of course it is deceptive.

Who says the "word of God" has to be a literal history? It is what we get out of the story that is important not whether or not it is historical fact. Genesis absolutely has poetic hints in the story.

If you don't believe Moses wrote genesis, thats fine, you can join the few biblical scholars left that don't believe that. I believe you have turned science into your God when you believe the bible to be little more than myth and fable.

What?? "Join the few Biblical scholars left that don't believe Moses wrote Genesis?" Are you joking? The scholarly consensus is that the Torah was not wholly written until after the exile to Babylon. Look up Robert Alter and The Five Books of Moses for more information. I believe as does Alter that the Torah was most certainly based upon oral tradition that dates back beyond the exile. It is also generally agreed that there were three authors for the Torah. But only protestant literalists believe Moses wrote the Torah.

You turn christianity into a good idea and good morals. To be honest, if all you want is a good idea and good morals you could just as well be a buddist, God claims to be the way the TRUTH and the light. I mean really, do you believe this about the gospels? that they are myth and fables and poetic?

You know it always bothers me when presups like yourself would actually like to turn people away from Christianity if they don't follow your literalism. I'm sure encouraging someone to take up Buddhism is exactly what Jesus would like you to argue.

 

[QuantumFlux]

What?? "Join the few Biblical scholars left that don't believe Moses wrote Genesis?" Are you joking? The scholarly consensus is that the Torah was not wholly written until after the exile to Babylon. Look up Robert Alter and The Five Books of Moses for more information. I believe as does Alter that the Torah was most certainly based upon oral tradition that dates back beyond the exile. It is also generally agreed that there were three authors for the Torah. But only protestant literalists believe Moses wrote the Torah.

I am far from joking my friend. You seem to have studied the left wing without acknowledging the right wing because as many books as there are on the "means" of the torah, there are 10x that many on the literalness of their language and wording. And most of them graduated after 1937

I wonder how much you really read about Robert Alter. Much of his studies remind me of the Jesus Seminar, starting off with the assumption that it's inaccurate and working from there. The problem with his assumptions is that we have yet to uncover archeaological evidence that anything biblical is false yet have found an astounding amount of supporting evidence. So "scholarly" studies have to negate the seeming impossible things (such as the story of the exile, garden of eden and the like) and say those things are false mostly because they seem like wild folk lore, though no archeological evidence has proven it wrong.

I still like how you avoided my question on what you believe about the gospels. My mention of being budhist was an accurate discription of someone who believe in christianity because it sounds good yet the story are obviously not true, its still good to live by.

Still curious about what you believe about the gospels.

 

[stumpjumper]

I am far from joking my friend. You seem to have studied the left wing without acknowledging the right wing because as many books as there are on the "means" of the torah, there are 10x that many on the literalness of their language and wording. And most of them graduated after 1937.

If I were to write a mythical story (and by myth I mean a story meant to tell a real truth), I would write the story as if the characters actually existed. Very much like we see in Genesis. So you can go on about how Yom with a number means a literal day in the story but it still does not mean that the story writers wrote it in that way because it was literal history. They were writing it that way to relay certain truths and to establish a seven day week with the sabbath. Seven also signifies Divine action and is a sacred number.

The only thing you are going to prove by following this literal line of thinking is making your interpretation inaccurate in regards to all other known facts. In that case you are reverting to Fideism and as such you should not try to support your beliefs rationally.

I wonder how much you really read about Robert Alter. Much of his studies remind me of the Jesus Seminar, starting off with the assumption that it's inaccurate and working from there.

First off I am not a Biblical minimalist like Thomas Thompson et al. I do follow the line of reasoning that absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. However, there is evidence that goes against the fact that Moses wrote the Torah. The three author hyposthesis is very well established.

There is also the redaction in certain books of the Torah and other OT scripture. Look up the correlation between the Thansgiving Psalms and Genesis where Abraham was to sacrifice Isaac. Also, look up Chapter 24 and 26 of 1 Samuel where there are two versions of the same incident. This is a reason to believe that this incident actually happened and that it was redacted into print much later than it occurred. The author believed he was writing down a part of history that was passed down and he felt obligated to pass on both versions.

There is however a big difference between proving the historicity of King David and Adam and Eve such avenues. If you have really studied other creation myths then you will find many similarities as well as some real differences in Genesis. Genesis is one of the only ones that have matter coming from non-matter (the mind of God). Cain and Abel takes place in a field and the conflict is over harvesting versus hunter-gatherers. There are some real meanings to all of these parts of Genesis that are lost on modern readers. These are oral traditions that were passed down and in that time the stories had much larger meaning in an allegorical meaning than a literal reading would give.

I still like how you avoided my question on what you believe about the gospels. My mention of being budhist was an accurate discription of someone who believe in christianity because it sounds good yet the story are obviously not true, its still good to live by.

Still curious about what you believe about the gospels.

I didn't avoid it; I never saw it. What exactly about the Gospels are you asking me? Do I take the parables literally? No. Do you? There is a big difference between recognizing a creation story as allegory when it was put into writing thousands of years after it was first told and reading the truth in Gospels that were written within the life time of eyewitnesses to the events.

If you want to believe that God created in six literal days six thousand years ago, placed two people in a Garden with magic trees and a talking snake, kicked them out right after they were placed within, flooded the whole world with the exception of one family, and then scattered the world population because we all spoke the same language then it's no skin off my back. But you will not end up convincing anyone here that you have found the most accurate exegesis. Especially since history, geology, archaeology, and common sense go against that interpretation.

 

[QuantumFlux]

Dr. David Fiensy, [size=-1]Larry Chouinard[/size] and Dr. Jim Girdwood have been just a few names of professors I have had the priviledge of learning under. If you wish to skoff at the notion of intellectually taking the torah or the tenach as literal you should have a conversation with them and I'm sure they could point you in the right direction on where to find resources, in fact I believe each has their own book on the subject.

 

[stumpjumper]

Dr. David Fiensy, [size=-1]Larry Chouinard[/size] and Dr. Jim Girdwood have been just a few names of professors I have had the priviledge of learning under. If you wish to skoff at the notion of intellectually taking the torah or the tenach as literal you should have a conversation with them and I'm sure they could point you in the right direction on where to find resources, in fact I believe each has their own book on the subject.

First off, that's just an appeal to authority. Second, there are many people who have an opinion on the subject. They might believe that you should take the Torah as literal history as do many others, but it is shown from our all other areas of research that the Torah is not literal history (at least Genesis 1-11). So your choice is that the Torah is wrong, your interpretation is wrong, or all other areas of research that even mention our past are wrong.

QuantumFlux, I'm sure you are a nice guy and a good Christian but YEC is IMO just about the most misguided pursuit available. I would have a lot more respect for Ken Hamm if instead of spending all that money on his own museum if he were to feed the poor and combat social injustice.

 

[QuantumFlux]

QuantumFlux, I'm sure you are a nice guy and a good Christian but YEC is IMO just about the most misguided pursuit available. I would have a lot more respect for Ken Hamm if instead of spending all that money on his own museum if he were to feed the poor and combat social injustice.

Thats funny because IMO evolution is the most misguided pursuit available. I believe it to be very arrogent to believe that we will ever discover how the earth was created on our own. It's a study that is modified and disagreed upon even in its own inner circles, I dont see how anyone could ever put their faith in what man creates (such as the evolutionary theory) knowing that it wont be the same theory next year.

So your choice is that the Torah is wrong, your interpretation is wrong, or all other areas of research that even mention our past are wrong.

Very not true, considering archeology does nothing but support the tenach and does nothing to disprove it. The only thing you mentioned about evidence against is the discrepency in 1 Kings and 1 chronicles and the only difference is the number of men present. If that is your only leg to stand on, it seems like a wobbly one to me.

If you are talking about the other cultures that created myths to get their ideas accross, honestly if you believe that the hebrews were doing that, why in the world would you believe them? I mean seriously, they just made it up, might as well be a scientologist.

You put christianity in a category that doesnt destinguish it from any other religion. If its seriously like that, whats the difference in believing in Greek mythology over Hebrew mythology?

And I'm not asking about the parables.... If i were i would have said parables. How do you see the gospels themselves? were they written by novelists, not really to convey what happened but rather to convey an idea of truth?

 

[stumpjumper]

You put christianity in a category that doesnt destinguish it from any other religion. If its seriously like that, whats the difference in believing in Greek mythology over Hebrew mythology?

No your strawman put's Christianity in a category that does not distinguish it from any other religion. Have you ever read a book by a theistic evolutionist or a historical critical view of the Torah like Alter's? Because it certainly sounds to me like you have not and it might be profitable.

And I'm not asking about the parables.... If i were i would have said parables. How do you see the gospels themselves? were they written by novelists, not really to convey what happened but rather to convey an idea of truth?

They were written by men who were inspired by circumstance and spirit.

 

[QuantumFlux]

They were written by men who were inspired by circumstance and spirit.

I don't believe you could have gotten any more vague. So were these stories made up by and fudged with biases according to events that may have happened? because inspired by circumstance and spirit can be taken many different ways.

No your strawman put's Christianity in a category that does not distinguish it from any other religion.

Hardly considering how many religions never claim to have the only true God. Most have many gods and others leave room for other gods to be true as well, but with the jewish faith and christianity there is no room for any other God. Now if this was just fables and myths and folk lore, I would have no reason to believe it over any of the other fables and myths other than the fact that its lasted so long. You say my version of christianity is a strawman but your version consists of mostly lies and folk tales. You can say they aren't lies but anything not truth trying to be passed off as truth is a lie. Gensis gives no hint at it being a story of folk lore, its obviously stating it matter of factly. If its not that way and the author knew it, he certainly didnt give any hints to that.