Creation vs. Evolution

[OnyxCougar]

OK, so see the "God of the Bible" thread, and the "Losing my Religion" thread for the spark that is responsible for this one. I just wanted one place to put everything.

I'm going to try to examine the points and counter points for each portion of the argument. Additional sources/non personaly insultive commentary is welcome and encouraged!

This is not about which religion is right or wrong, or whether religion is right or wrong, it's about the reasoning/arguments used in each of the belief systems (Evolutionism and Creationism) that purport to explain the origin of man.

[be-bop]

It has to be evolution,you're never gonna convince me that all that shit out there is somehow planned.

[xoxoxoBruce]

Originally posted by be-bop
It has to be evolution,you're never gonna convince me that all that shit out there is somehow planned.

Well to tell you the truth be-bop, I didn't turn out like I planned.

[be-bop]

[quote] Well to tell you the truth be-bop, I didn't turn out like I planned.


So you're the one to blame?

[Beestie]

Creationism is a matter of faith and so (conveniently) is exempt from the requirement of evidence.

Personally, I don't see the two ideas at odds and I very comfortably accept both. Evolution makes perfect sense and you don't have to look too hard to see it everywhere. But there is nothing in the theory of evolution that disproves (to me) God or divine creation.

I just erased a three paragraph diatribe addressing those who would advance the argument that evolution DOES contradict (or cannot co-exist with) creationism - I'll save it in the event a Cellarite elects to advance that argument.

For me, its far from "either-or" but it IS either or for some folks and some institutions (e.g., the Kansas Board of Education).

In any event, I think its an interesting topic.

[OnyxCougar]

I suppose a good place to start is to define terms from the outset:
Evolution:

• a process of continuous change from a lower, simpler, or worse to a higher, more complex, or better state
  
• a theory that the various types of animals and plants have their origin in other preexisting types and that the distinguishable differences are due to modifications in successive generations

Creationism: The belief that the entire population of the earth, inclusive of man and animal/insect/bacteria, etc were created by a deity henceforth referenced as "God", and the act of this creation was documented in a book known as "the Bible" and that the literal reading of the bible is an accurate presentation of the events that transpired.

More to come.

[jinx]

Originally posted by Beestie
Creationism is a matter of faith and so (conveniently) is exempt from the requirement of evidence.

I just erased a three paragraph diatribe addressing those who would advance the argument that evolution DOES contradict (or cannot co-exist with) creationism - I'll save it in the event a Cellarite elects to advance that argument.

Post away, I'd love to hear it. How does a 10,000 year old (give or take) earth AND the known fossil record coexist peacefully within the same belief system?

[OnyxCougar]

Originally posted by Beestie

I just erased a three paragraph diatribe addressing those who would advance the argument that evolution DOES contradict (or cannot co-exist with) creationism - I'll save it in the event a Cellarite elects to advance that argument.

ET states that it took millions of years to get from planet forming life, through dinosaurs, through iceages, apes to men.

All the ages referenced in the bible add up to about 6,000 years. Creationists believe the earth to be about 6,000 years old.

[Happy Monkey]

Originally posted by Beestie
Personally, I don't see the two ideas at odds and I very comfortably accept both. Evolution makes perfect sense and you don't have to look too hard to see it everywhere. But there is nothing in the theory of evolution that disproves (to me) God or divine creation.
...
For me, its far from "either-or" but it IS either or for some folks and some institutions (e.g., the Kansas Board of Education).

The people who see a contradiction are the people who believe in the literal word-for-word truth of the Bible. Science has one order for the creation of various forms of life, which doesn't exactly match the one in Genesis.

The concept of a divinely directed path for evolution is logically possible, and any honest scientist will grant that. Unfortunately, the creationists are quick to try to take advantage of that honesty in order to get "Intelligent Design" put into science textbooks. The problem there is that intelligent design is not science. It is no more scientific than saying "warlocks did it." It is certainly POSSIBLE that warlocks are responsible for life on Earth, but it doesn't belong in a science book.

[Slartibartfast]

Originally posted by Happy Monkey
The people who see a contradiction are the people who believe in the literal word-for-word truth of the Bible. Science has one order for the creation of various forms of life, which doesn't exactly match the one in Genesis.

The concept of a divinely directed path for evolution is logically possible, and any honest scientist will grant that. Unfortunately, the creationists are quick to try to take advantage of that honesty in order to get "Intelligent Design" put into science textbooks. The problem there is that intelligent design is not science. It is no more scientific than saying "warlocks did it." It is certainly POSSIBLE that warlocks are responsible for life on Earth, but it doesn't belong in a science book.

I agree with Happy Monkey above. There is no problem with the idea that God created the universe some 12 billion years ago with the intent that life would arise from it through scientifically consistent means (evolution).

Interestingly one argument a Creationist can make that is completely impossible to refute is the following:

God created the universe 6000 years ago. All bones and evidence for the earth and the universe being billions of years old were all created 6000 years ago. All the starlight that takes millions of years to transit through space from places millions of light years away were in fact created in transit in order to reach earth on time.

And what is the problem with this idea? Well, why would God do such a stupid thing? This idea implies a dishonest God because he is shown to create a universe that is a lie. That just doesn't sound right.
This same idea could be used to say the universe was created five minutes ago, with all of our memories being fabrications.

[Beestie]

I don't see a contradiction between the two positions because I have never accepted that a literal interpretation of the Bible is a valid position.

For example, the Bible has been translated many times between many languages since it was originally written. When confronted with the inherent problem in communicating a thought/idea/chain of events between two languages, the theologeans have consistently proffered that the Bible is the Word of God and that God guided their hand in the translation. Taken another way (my way), I understand that to mean that God guided their interpretation of the source text.

Another example supporting the validity of interpretation is that Jesus often made his important points in the form of parables (e.g., the prodigal son). The prodigal son story ONLY makes sense if one understands the underlying principal and applies the personifications that allow the story to make sense (apologies to those not familiar with the story).

Hence, I cannot fathom a justification (but remain open should anyone offer one/some) to take the words in the Bible literally. Taken literally, a large section of the Bible has no application to anyone other than the characters involved. Hardly divinely inspired if it has no application to anyone else.

So, basically, I am advancing the (hardly original) idea that the Bible must be interpreted with divine guidance in order to be useful and that taken literally, the Bible is really hamstrung.

Given that (which is where I am coming from), I understand the Bible as written in metaphors that one can apply to one's own paradigm. That someone several thousand years ago thought the world was created in 7 days does not bind me to the same specific thought. 7 days or 7 millenium - whatever - God made the world/universe/singularity that led to its existence.

In my view, the Bible sets forth that God set the wheels of creation in motion and has pretty much "let it happen" after that - minor divine inflections notwithstanding.

Regarding the fallacy of literal interpretation of a paradigm-inspired understanding, I'm reminded of Eric vonDaanekin's (sp) book Chariots Of The Gods. In that book, he asserts that the "lines in the deserts" are really ancient landing strips. Only in the age of the Boeing 747 would he postulate that. I guess he never bothered to figure that a craft capable of transversing unfathomable distances would have rubber tires and need a freakin' landing strip a half-mile long to decellerate to a stop.

This is the problem I have with literal interpretations - they preclude subsequent and more logical explanations.

Corrected two spelling errors - content unchanged

[Beestie]

This same idea could be used to say the universe was created five minutes ago, with all of our memories being fabrications.

Welcome,Slartibartfast, to the Matrix

[OnyxCougar]

OK, this is a case of Eisegesis and Exegesis.

The Random House Webster’s Unabridged Dictionary defines ‘eisegesis’ as: an interpretation, esp. of Scripture, that expresses the interpreter’s own ideas, bias, or the like, rather than the meaning of the text.

Thus, when someone reads something into Scripture—this would be an example of eisegesis. For instance, nowhere does the Bible ever speak of billions of years. In Genesis 1, the word day (yôm) in context, as used for the six days of creation (with a number and the phrase evening and morning), means these days are ordinary approximately 24-hour periods—ordinary days.

However, probably the majority of church leaders insist these days could represent billions of years—this is ‘eisegesis’, as the billions of years is a belief from outside of Scripture that is read into Scripture (resulting in the clear words of Scripture being reinterpreted on the basis of these outside ideas).

**********

The Random House Webster’s Unabridged Dictionary defines ‘exegesis’ as: critical explanation or interpretation of a text or portion of a text, esp. of the Bible.

This is often called the ‘grammatical-historical’ interpretation method.

Thus, when someone reads the words of Scripture, and interprets them on the basis of context and the type of literature etc., then this would be an example of ‘exegesis’—reading out of Scripture what the writer clearly intended to express.

In Genesis 1, the Hebrew word for day (yôm), as used for each of the six Days of Creation, would be looked at in regard to context and the type of literature. Genesis is written in typical Jewish historical narrative—this is important to understand when interpreting the words of this book. Any reputable Hebrew lexicon (one-way dictionary) will list the different meanings given to a word (like ‘day’), and the various contexts that determine these meanings.

One will find that whenever the yôm (day) is qualified by a number or the phrase evening and morning, it always means an ordinary day. Thus, critically looking at the text and then reading out of Scripture, one cannot come to any other conclusion except that these days were ordinary (24-hour) days.

If one consistently applies this same method of interpretation throughout the Scriptures, one would have no problem accepting the Virginal Conception and the literal bodily Resurrection of Christ. Such teachings come only from the revelation of Scripture—the words of the Bible taken in context according to the type of literature. This results in believing the words of Scripture, not doubting them, thus providing the basis for the Christian faith.

In addition:

Most scholars agree that the bible is written or edited by different people. So, what if the Mosaic books (the Septuagint, or the first 5 books of the bible, edited or written by Moses) were meant to be taken literally? Does that negate Jesus' parables? Jesus told parables, and therefore ALL of the bible, old and new testament must be interpreted, and not taken as literal truths? That doesn't make sense.

Lets extend your idea to non-religious, fictitious works, for a moment. I'll use the Belgariad by David Eddings as an example.

It opens with the telling of Garion's childhood and events that follow. Then the storyteller (Old Wolf) comes to the farm and tells the story of the creation of the Orb of Aldur and Torak One-Eye. We later find out the Old Wolf is Belgarath, an ancient sorceror, hand chosen by the God Aldur. Belgarath tells many parables and stories throught the next twelve books to illustrate some point or another. Does that make the beginning of the book, the part about Faldor's farm, open to interpretation simply because Belgarath told some parables?

Substitute Genesis for Faldor's Farm and Jesus for Belgarath, and it's much the same thing.

Mostly, I think it's context. In the other thread, I brought up the different translations and how it could be rape or coersion, depending on the translation. It's very much about the Hebrew and Greek and how you translate the words. In context for a fuller understanding? Wouldn't that be the best way to go?

I have an "amplified" bible, that has about a ton of footnotes in it, where the Hebrew is open to different meanings. It also says yom is day, when used with numbers and time of day.

[Slartibartfast]

Originally posted by Beestie
I
Given that (which is where I am coming from), I understand the Bible as written in metaphors that one can apply to one's own paradigm.

Saying the Bible is written in metaphors is a little misleading, but I think I get what you are saying.

The Bible is a collection of many books. Some sections of the Bible are mythlike (the TWO creation stories in Genesis), some cronical history (Kings), some is poetry (Song of Songs), some is prayer and song (Psalms). There are also many many authors to the books of the Bible, and they had varying intents with what they wrote (something literalism fails to capture)

The parts that are history, such as the lives of the different kings that israel had, are not metaphor as written. They are history -how accurate they are is debatable, but they are still historical documents.
Now one could look at the life of one of the kings and draw parallels to ones own life, but that is similar to looking at the history of one of the presidents and drawing paralells from that.

[Slartibartfast]

Originally posted by Beestie

Welcome,Slartibartfast, to the Matrix

That means everyone should start wearing black clothes, and shades!