Lets try to Understand Genesis whilst believing Evolution.

Fanny Cradock

What?

Flamed Diving

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

What?

Well, you are interpreting the "moon being a light source" quote in the context of pre-scientific civilisation, yes?

Fanny Cradock

I'm afraid I can't see how get to the point where you believe "God's divine... whatever" in relation to Genesis is being denied by myself.

Flamed Diving

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

I'm afraid I can't see how get to the point where you believe "God's divine... whatever" in relation to Genesis is being denied by myself.

So the people who wrote the book wouldn't be able to tell the difference. This is your point? Right?

J C

wrote:

"Lets try to Understand Genesis whilst believing Evolution"

1. You can't fully understand Genesis whilst believing in Evolution!!!

2. Why would you want to believe in a scientifically invalid concept like Evolution, anyway???

Fanny Cradock

What?

(only joking)

Flamed Diving wrote: »

So the people who wrote the book wouldn't be able to tell the difference. This is your point? Right?

OK. There is obviously a lot of confusion between us. Let me try clarify my position.

I doubt if people had sufficient knowledge of astronomy to even consider whether the moon was a primary or a secondary (reflective) source of light. The moon simply was. And amongst other things, it helped them to see at night. Beyond such simple facts, I'm not sure there was much need for debate. They were more pragmatic, I guess.

Turtwig

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

What?

(only joking)



OK. There is obviously a lot of confusion between us. Let me try clarify my position.

I doubt if people had sufficient knowledge of astronomy to even consider whether the moon was a primary or a secondary (reflective) source of light. The moon simply was. And amongst other things, it helped them to see at night. Beyond such simple facts, I'm not sure there was much need for debate. They were more pragmatic, I guess.

Yeah this isn't a problem if you accept the more accepted understanding of genesis. However, I think flamed was pointing out the error in treating the interpretation of Genesis as a historical or scientific narrative. From that point of view the moon cannot be a light source without some sort of ad hoc hypothesis.

Flamed Diving

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

OK. There is obviously a lot of confusion between us. Let me try clarify my position.

I doubt if people had sufficient knowledge of astronomy to even consider whether the moon was a primary or a secondary (reflective) source of light. The moon simply was. And amongst other things, it helped them to see at night. Beyond such simple facts, I'm not sure there was much need for debate. They were more pragmatic, I guess.

Yeah, that's what I thought, I just didn't write clearly enough I guess.

Anyway, so my next question would be: Yes, it is fair to allow for these peoples ignorance of astronomy (although the knowledge in that region was pretty good, in parts) but how does that excuse a divinely ordained document? I assume God knows the difference, being omniscient.

Flamed Diving

Malty_T wrote: »

Yeah this isn't a problem if you accept the more accepted understanding of genesis. However, I think flamed was pointing out the error in treating the interpretation of Genesis as a historical or scientific narrative. From that point of view the moon cannot be a light source without some sort of ad hoc hypothesis.

Yeah, are we not treating it as literal?

Turtwig

Flamed Diving wrote: »

Yeah, are we not treating it as literal?

The whole aim of the thread is trying to understand Genesis, by looking at the various interpretations of it.:)

J C

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

What?

(only joking)



OK. There is obviously a lot of confusion between us. Let me try clarify my position.

I doubt if people had sufficient knowledge of astronomy to even consider whether the moon was a primary or a secondary (reflective) source of light. The moon simply was. And amongst other things, it helped them to see at night. Beyond such simple facts, I'm not sure there was much need for debate. They were more pragmatic, I guess.

...Genesis is the inspired Word of God ... and not the musings of some 'astonomcally challenged' person!!!

Turtwig

J C wrote: »

...Genesis is the inspired Word of God .

Fanny isn't saying any different.
Fanny is merely saying that Genesis is a inspired form of elevated prose that does its best to describe the nature and humility of God's act of creation.

Fanny Cradock

Flamed Diving wrote: »

Yeah, that's what I thought, I just didn't write clearly enough I guess.

Anyway, so my next question would be: Yes, it is fair to allow for these peoples ignorance of astronomy (although the knowledge in that region was pretty good, in parts) but how does that excuse a divinely ordained document? I assume God knows the difference, being omniscient.

You assume correctly! Otherwise I would have to assume that you either don't understand what omniscience means, or you are acting the maggot

Anyway, I don't see a problem. At a very practical level - to the guy who would otherwise be fumbling in the dark - the moon is very much seen as a source of light. It's pragmatic comprehension, not a scientific theory.

You would have a valid objection if the claim was made that Genesis provides a literal blow-by-blow account of astronomical phenomena. I don't believe it does! (Though I will also state that I believe Genesis and the modern scientific understanding about the origins of the universe are not mutually exclusive). Instead, I believe that Genesis is an account (in the form of poetry and elevated prose) that was delivered for man and at his level.

God's knowledge of the universe isn't in question because it was our limited understanding that dictated the complexity of the story. So, that we now know more about the moon isn't the final nail in God's coffin, it's a pat on the back to all those smart and strange men who decided it would be a gas to while away the late night hours peering through telescopes.

The fundamentals of the story remain the same despite our shifting perspectives and gained knowledge.

(Sorry double post - hit quote instead of edit. Deleted the old and this is the new)

Fanny Cradock

J C wrote: »

...Genesis is the inspired Word of God ... and not the musings of some 'astonomcally challenged' person!!!

Never said anything different. I think we both agree that Genesis is the inspired word of God. The difference is how we read it.

Malty_T wrote: »

Fanny isn't saying any different.
Fanny is merely saying that Genesis is a inspired form of elevated prose that does its best to describe the nature and humility of God's act of creation.

Bad things happen if you say my name 3 times in the same sentence.

antiskeptic

Wicknight wrote: »

It is a myth of creationists and others pushing pseudoscience that science is about conclusions reached through the interpretation of evidence.

It would be great for them if it was because then anyone could say Well I'm interpreting it this way rather than that way. It becomes entirely subjective.

But that isn't what modern science is. Modern science is about predictive models, not interpretation. You don't interpret evidence and come to a conclusion. You look at your prediction and see if it matches.

This was highlighted in the diver trial where the judge rejected the attempts by creationists to redefine science

Firstly, I'm not trying to suggest that creationist attempts to do science hold water. I haven't immersed myself deeply in that field but what I have seen of it doesn't inspire me with much confidence. Indeed, I'm pretty sure that it's Gods intention to remain deniable and clear scientific evidence of his existance strikes me as completely counter productive to that goal.

Secondly, it doesn't really matter how the conclusion arrived at is constructed, or how complex the systematics of arriving at that conclusion are or how well you think the conclusions hull as been sealed against leaks. The principle remains and cannot be ensured against: the whole shooting match could find itself inserted into another, equally satisfying matrix of construction showing how a different conclusion could have been arrived at with the tools/abilities available to man.

What form the God delusion takes isn't known precisely, but it appears that the unbeliever isn't to reside in unbelief in a vacuum. Rather he is to be equipped with all that is required to satisy him and ensure his unbelief is sustainable, if that is what he desires. For those of a scientific bent, atheistic evolution strikes me as just the ticket.

Turtwig

antiskeptic wrote:

Firstly, I'm not trying to suggest that creationist attempts to do science hold water. I haven't immersed myself deeply in that field but what I have seen of it doesn't inspire me with much confidence. Indeed, I'm pretty sure that it's Gods intention to remain deniable and clear scientific evidence of his existance strikes me as completely counter productive to that goal.

Secondly, it doesn't really matter how the conclusion arrived at is constructed, or how complex the systematics of arriving at that conclusion are or how well you think the conclusions hull as been sealed against leaks. The principle remains and cannot be ensured against: the whole shooting match could find itself inserted into another, equally satisfying matrix of construction showing how a different conclusion could have been arrived at with the tools/abilities available to man.

What form the God delusion takes isn't known precisely, but it appears that the unbeliever isn't to reside in unbelief in a vacuum. Rather he is to be equipped with all that is required to satisy him and ensure his unbelief is sustainable, if that is what he desires. For those of a scientific bent, atheistic evolution strikes me as just the ticket.

I'm sorry but I did not understand that post at all.

chozometroid

Malty_T wrote: »

Yeah this isn't a problem if you accept the more accepted understanding of genesis. However, I think flamed was pointing out the error in treating the interpretation of Genesis as a historical or scientific narrative. From that point of view the moon cannot be a light source without some sort of ad hoc hypothesis.

I don't see what you are going on about. Even if Genesis is taken literally, it says nothing about the moon. It doesn't say, "and the moon, which provided light of it's own source for the night."
All it does is call the moon a "light." This can be taken literally. Just because it's a secondary source does not mean it's not a light source. It practically provides enough light to do activities outside at night when it's a clear sky. Would you say, "the sunlight reflecting off the moon is bright" or "the moon light is bright?"

Sam Vimes

antiskeptic wrote: »

Firstly, I'm not trying to suggest that creationist attempts to do science hold water. I haven't immersed myself deeply in that field but what I have seen of it doesn't inspire me with much confidence. Indeed, I'm pretty sure that it's Gods intention to remain deniable and clear scientific evidence of his existance strikes me as completely counter productive to that goal.

What form the God delusion takes isn't known precisely, but it appears that the unbeliever isn't to reside in unbelief in a vacuum. Rather he is to be equipped with all that is required to satisy him and ensure his unbelief is sustainable, if that is what he desires. For those of a scientific bent, atheistic evolution strikes me as just the ticket.

Just to be clear here, are you saying that god has deliberately created a world where one can be intellectually satisfied that he is very unlikely to exist and appears to be nothing more than the invention of primitive tribesmen? And that he then punishes the people who follow the evidence and rewards the people who believe despite the intellectual case against against belief

Zombrex

antiskeptic wrote: »

The principle remains and cannot be ensured against: the whole shooting match could find itself inserted into another, equally satisfying matrix of construction showing how a different conclusion could have been arrived at with the tools/abilities available to man.

You are going to have to define "the whole shooting match" and "equally satisfying matrix of construction", cause at the moment I'm not following your post at all.

At the moment I think what you are saying is that it is possible to take any set of evidence used to reach a scientific conclusion and use it to reach a completely different scientific conclusion. Which, as I hoped I explained, isn't true.

You could only do that if you some how managed to produce a scientific model of something that made constantly made predictions that accurately fit observed phenomena but which wasn't actually accurately modelling a system in reality.

In which cause you couldn't determine that your model wasn't modelling the way reality actually works because your model would appear on all levels to be modelling how reality works.

This is certainly possibly, but it is quite inaccurate to say that you can take any scientific data and do this. It is quite unlikely that a model that has no reflection on reality would constantly produce results that match observeration.

antiskeptic wrote: »

What form the God delusion takes isn't known precisely, but it appears that the unbeliever isn't to reside in unbelief in a vacuum. Rather he is to be equipped with all that is required to satisy him and ensure his unbelief is sustainable, if that is what he desires. For those of a scientific bent, atheistic evolution strikes me as just the ticket.

What do you mean by "atheistic evolution"?

Fanny Cradock

Wicknight wrote: »

What do you mean by "atheistic evolution"?

Humm... perhaps the term "theistic evolution" is causing all sorts of confusion?

Flamed Diving

The only suitable prefix for evolution is 'Neo-Darwinian'. Nothing more.

Turtwig

I never really understood this whole "atheistic"/"theistic" businesss. It's evolution* either way and the theist believes God can intervene at any point by His choosing; the atheist doesn't believe in God so obviously they don't allow Him the possibility of interfering. I just don't get it. why don't we call the Big Bang Model "Atheistic Big Bang" or "Theistic Big Bang", seeing as the Big Bang also has theological ramifications. Why do biological theories get all the special treatments?


*Neo-Darwinian..as Flamed pointed out is really the only term.

santing

Where are the moderators
I thought the ground rule for this discussion was that we try to understand Genesis in the light of modern Science, with at least the believe that Genesis is part of God's inspired Word.

The current discussion is much the same as the superthread...

Fanny Cradock

santing wrote: »

Where are the moderators
I thought the ground rule for this discussion was that we try to understand Genesis in the light of modern Science, with at least the believe that Genesis is part of God's inspired Word.

The current discussion is much the same as the superthread...

Yes, it's looking like that.

Expounding on the finer points of creationism is not the job of this thread. Accordingly I've moved monosharp's post to the other thread. JC can answer (smilies optional) or ignore the questions as he see fit.

http://boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=63378685&postcount=19221

Fanny Cradock

Malty_T wrote: »

I never really understood this whole "atheistic"/"theistic" businesss. It's evolution* either way and the theist believes God can intervene at any point by His choosing; the atheist doesn't believe in God so obviously they don't allow Him the possibility of interfering. I just don't get it. why don't we call the Big Bang Model "Atheistic Big Bang" or "Theistic Big Bang", seeing as the Big Bang also has theological ramifications. Why do biological theories get all the special treatments?


*Neo-Darwinian..as Flamed pointed out is really the only term.

It's a good point. Perhaps it is because certain people are convinced that evolution necessarily rules out God - usually the Christian God. Isn't Dicky one of them?

Turtwig

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

It's a good point. Perhaps it is because certain people are convinced that evolution necessarily rules out God - usually the Christian God. Isn't Dicky one of them?

Yeah, but he holds the bible as being a scientific text.

Fanny Cradock

Michael Ruse (no friend of Dicky, I understand) makes what I assume is a semi-serious point with regards to Dawkins' insistence (despite what evolution accepting Christians say) that evolution disproves Christianity.

Morbert

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

Michael Ruse (no friend of Dicky, I understand) makes what I assume is a semi-serious point with regards to Dawkins' insistence (despite what evolution accepting Christians say) that evolution disproves Christianity.

While I am not a fan of all of Dawkins's work. I don't ever recall him claiming that evolution disproves God . What he says is evolution refutes the argument from design, and shows that God is not necessary to explain the complexity of life. This is what lead him to atheism, as he had no other reason to believe in God.

Flamed Diving

I do recall Dawkins saying that. I remember because it irritated me that he would make such a false statement, given his knowledge.

It may have been this video:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x8ElT2b1Z04

PDN

I think the point about 'theistic' evolution is that it is not a matter of chance, randomness, or purely natural forces at work. It is not that God created a big bang and then stood back to see how things played out, but rather that He guided the process of evolution to create mankind.

So 'theistic evolution' is more than just saying that you simultaneously believe in both God and evolution. It is saying that God chose to use evolution to achieve His purposes and, quite possibly, directed the process of evolution.