Is the Theory of Evolution Harmless to Religion?

[Mr Spinkles]

You understood it PERFECTLY... it is folklore (your words) handed down from generation to generation and finally written down after many, many years. It is remarkable that they got it this close, but it was never meant as a science text.

I apologize if I've misunderstood you.

Do you agree that the people who originally wrote it down believed it to be literally true?

Those who treat it as such, have an agenda to "debunk" religion and that's a shame. If you don't believe it, then fine, but why the evangelistic zeal to disprove it?

I'm unaware that I was trying to disprove anything. I just think it's important to distinguish between a modern audience's interpretation and what the original authors intended.

My, my... only YOU can determine the relevance of the Scripture as it applies to you. It's amazing that you would refer to the Tanakh as "empty rhetoric". Not very respectful of the basis of many people's beliefs, now are we?

First of all: Corinthians is part of the Tanakh? Secondly, I was not calling the scripture from Corinthians empty rhetoric, I was calling your use of it in this discussion empty rhetoric. Please do not confuse criticism of what you say with criticism of what scripture and/or god says.

 

[Scuba Pete]

Do you agree that the people who originally wrote it down believed it to be literally true?

As with all Rabbis, I am certain they were trying to inspire faith in the one God. I am not sure they understood the concept of "literal", but I am comfortable believing that they did the best job possible.

I'm unaware that I was trying to disprove anything. I just think it's important to distinguish between a modern audience's interpretation and what the original authors intended.

It would probably be sheer arrogance for either of us to declare that we fully understood the original author's intent. However, it appears to many of us that the intent of MOST who use this argument is simply to grasp at a seeming inconsistency in order to win a point. They tell us that we must STOP believing in the Scriptures because they (in their finite wisdom) think they have caught God with his cosmic pants down. When presented with an alternate view, they are quick to tell us that we simply CAN'T believe that without committing some sort of intellectual suicide. These are usually the same people who can't accept that there is a significant amount of faith in accepting science. Ah, but I rant.

First of all: Corinthians is part of the Tanakh? Secondly, I was not calling the scripture from Corinthians empty rhetoric, I was calling your use of it in this discussion empty rhetoric. Please do not confuse criticism of what you say with criticism of what scripture and/or god says.

Sorry Spinks, that is a valid observation: it is not part of the Tanakh. Mea culpa. However, your inability to understand the application of a scripture is no reason to call it empty rhetoric. Perhaps a more introspective approach would help you to see the reason I used it. Rather than blaming me for taking your statement at face value, you would do better to be a little more clear about just what you are referring to.

 

[Mr Spinkles]

As with all Rabbis, I am certain they were trying to inspire faith in the one God. I am not sure they understood the concept of "literal", but I am comfortable believing that they did the best job possible.

Do you think they believed that it was literally true, or not? Do you think they believed that Earth was created before the Sun, for example?

It would probably be sheer arrogance for either of us to declare that we fully understood the original author's intent. However, it appears to many of us that the intent of MOST who use this argument . . .

Sorry, but the topic is not about the intent of people who use any sort of argument. The topic is about whether evolution is harmless to religion, and by extension, whether evolution conflicts with the creation story in Genesis. Please resist the temptation to rant about what you believe to be others' motives and stick to addressing the arguments put forward.

Sorry Spinks, that is a valid observation: it is not part of the Tanakh. Mea culpa. However, your inability to understand the application of a scripture is no reason to call it empty rhetoric.

On the other hand, your inability to explain why you quoted that scripture and what relevance it had to this discussion is a very good reason to call it empty rhetoric.

 

[Scuba Pete]

Do you think they believed that it was literally true, or not? Do you think they believed that Earth was created before the Sun, for example?

Again, I don't believe they understood your concept of "literally". How could they mean it in such a way when they have no clue what that way is? They did their best to explain God and in that I can rely. Do you have evidence to the contrary???

Sorry, but the topic is not about the intent of people who use any sort of argument. The topic is about whether evolution is harmless to religion, and by extension, whether evolution conflicts with the creation story in Genesis. Please resist the temptation to rant about what you believe to be others' motives and stick to addressing the arguments put forward.

If you are laying this on me as a moderator, I will comply. However, intent has a HUGE bearing on the veracity and intensity of the arguments being prosecuted. People dismiss it mostly when they know that a problem exists. After all, it's the intent that seems to cause the most harm anyway.

On the other hand, your inability to explain why you quoted that scripture and what relevance it had to this discussion is a very good reason to call it empty rhetoric.

Don't mistake "inability" with an outright "refusal" to respond to your troll. Like a joke, if I have to explain it to you, it ruins it. Use your mind, Spinks. BTW, it's great to tell me not to worry about motive in one paragraph and then question mine in the next. Good show!

 

[Pah]

Deut. read James response. It is a good example of your lame claim that "religion is trying to reconcile with science" does not mesh with early Church writings.

~Victor

However you want to say it - science reconciled to religion or vice versa. One of the Early Church fathers, Clement of Alexander put a scientific spin to the cause of perversion. To quote from Paedagogus 2.10 as found in one of my articles http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/article.php?a=39

Consider, for instance, how the all-wise Moses somewhat symbolically repudiated fruitless sowing, saying, " You shall not eat the hare or the hyena." ... The hare, for example, is said to grow a new anus each year [see Barnabas 10; Pliny 8.55; etc.], so that he has the same number of openings as the number of years he has lived. Hence the prohibition against eating the hare represents a rejection of pederasty. The hyena, on the other hand, is alternately male and female in succeeding years-by which [Moses] suggests that those who abstain from the hyena will not be very prone to adultery.

You'll notice that there is reference within to other writers which I presume may be called Early Church writers.

 

[Mr Spinkles]

Again, I don't believe they understood your concept of "literally". How could they mean it in such a way when they have no clue what that way is?

Great question. I think there's good reason to believe that the people who wrote the various parts of the Old Testament understood how to write figuratively and how to write a historical narrative. I would note that there are clear examples of allegory in the Old Testament. For example, consider Psalm 80: 8-19:

[size=-1]

Thou hast brought a vine out of Egypt: Thou hast cast out the heathen, and planted it. Thou preparedst room before it, and didst cause it to take deep root, and it filled the land. The hills were covered with the shadow of it, and the boughs thereof were like the goodly cedars. She sent out her boughs unto the sea, and her branches unto the river. Why hast Thou then broken down her hedges, so that all they which pass by the way do pluck her? The boar out of the wood doth waste it, and the wild beast of the field doth devour it. Return, we beseech thee, O God of hosts: look down from heaven, and behold, and visit this vine; And the vineyard which thy right hand hath planted, and the branch that thou madest strong for thyself. It is burned with fire, it is cut down: they perish at the rebuke of thy countenance. Let thy hand be upon the man of thy right hand, upon the son of man whom thou madest strong for thyself. So will not we go back from thee: quicken us, and we will call upon thy name. Turn us again, O LORD God of hosts, cause thy face to shine; and we shall be saved.

Here, Israel is being described as a vine. It's clear that the passage is not about a real vine, but that the vine represents Israel. It's not saying Israel came from a vine, nor does the imagery of the vine explain any unknown aspect of Israel. The vine is simply an imaginative way of describing Israel. Now let's consider (part of) Genesis:

[/size]

1In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth. 2And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.

3And God said, Let there be light: and there was light.

4And God saw the light, that it was good: and God divided the light from the darkness.

5And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day.

6And God said, Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters.

7And God made the firmament, and divided the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament: and it was so.

8And God called the firmament Heaven. And the evening and the morning were the second day.

9And God said, Let the waters under the heaven be gathered together unto one place, and let the dry land appear: and it was so.

10And God called the dry land Earth; and the gathering together of the waters called he Seas: and God saw that it was good.

11And God said, Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb yielding seed, and the fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind, whose seed is in itself, upon the earth: and it was so.

12And the earth brought forth grass, and herb yielding seed after his kind, and the tree yielding fruit, whose seed was in itself, after his kind: and God saw that it was good.

13And the evening and the morning were the third day.

Unlike the other passage, this describes events that happened in the past. Furthermore, unlike the other passage, this passage explains a lot of things that people couldn't explain at the time: how the Earth Sun and Moon were formed, how the universe got to be the way it is, how life and humans came to be. While the first passage used a vine as a way of describing Israel, this passage explains the reason things are the way they are--it's purpose is to explain things (e.g. where women came from, why childbirth involves pain, why animals have the names they do). Unlike the last passage, in which Israel was explicitly related to a vine, the author(s) of Genesis make no mention of an outside topic for which this story might be an allegory. Nor do the various details lend themselves to greater meaning. For example, if the authors didn't really believe that the Earth was created before the Sun, and if they didn't really want their audiences to believe it, why did they specifically include the details of which days the Sun and Earth were created, and specifically have Earth being created on an earlier day than the Sun? It might be tempting for us, as a modern audience, with our modern knowledge that the Sun came long before Earth, to cast this knowledge back on the authors and assume that this detail is insignificant; but if we remember context, and if we remember that these people didn't know these things, it's easy to see that this was believed to be true and intended that way when written.

They did their best to explain God and in that I can rely. Do you have evidence to the contrary???

I'm not saying they didn't do their best to explain God. I'm saying that they were also trying to explain other things--like how the Earth formed. I'm saying that ancient Hebrews believed the Earth was flat, that the sky was a fixed firmament of stars, that the Earth rested atop pillars in an ocean. I'm saying they believed that the Sun and Moon were created after the Earth was created. Many parts of Genesis (and the rest of the Old Testament) are incoherent unless these things are assumed to be true.

That's all I'm saying. I'm not trying to "disprove" the Bible, or insult your (or anyone's) faith; I'm not even saying that it is wrong to interpret Genesis as an allegory or metaphor. In fact, I think it's a great thing that ancient legends are reinterpreted/re-examined. I just think that it's important not to mistake a modern interpretation for the original beliefs/intents of the authors. That's all.

 

[Scuba Pete]

example, consider Psalm 80: 8-19:

[size=-1]
Here, Israel is being described as a vine.

Cool, now we need to determine if these are the very same authors and even if they were written in the same time period. Writing as well as grammar etc, evolves over time. We have certainly seen that even in our own life times. Of course, it is way harder to figure out not only the intent of the writer, but the stylistic philosophy this many millenia removed.

[/size]

I'm not saying they didn't do their best to explain God. I'm saying that they were also trying to explain other things--like how the Earth formed. I'm saying that ancient Hebrews believed the Earth was flat, that the sky was a fixed firmament of stars, that the Earth rested atop pillars in an ocean.

Quite possibly they were trying to rectify reality with their perceived reality then: much as we do today. Since God obviously didn't care if they believed these things, allowing them to discover our wonderful planet on their own, and concentrated on the "I AM!" parts.

I'm saying they believed that the Sun and Moon were created after the Earth was created. Many parts of Genesis (and the rest of the Old Testament) are incoherent unless these things are assumed to be true.

Not everyone is befuddled by this. It is actually after I abandoned my human philosophy that every word in the Scriptures is perfect that I really began to see the whole picture. I have said this before, but the Tanakh is written largely in Blog style. The Israelites wrote down their perceptions and their history, sometimes ascribing atrocious things to God. I am sure that this happened in the NT as well where misunderstandings of what happened are written down as "Gospel Truth".

That's all I'm saying. I'm not trying to "disprove" the Bible, or insult your (or anyone's) faith; I'm not even saying that it is wrong to interpret Genesis as an allegory or metaphor. In fact, I think it's a great thing that ancient legends are reinterpreted/re-examined. I just think that it's important not to mistake a modern interpretation for the original beliefs/intents of the authors. That's all.

I quite agree with this, and again assert that for either of us to claim that we have a lock on what the original authors were trying to say would be shameless arrogance. PS: I am glad that your intent is not to destroy!

 

[Scuba Pete]

To quote from Paedagogus 2.10 as found in one of my articles.

Reading stuff like this always cracks me up and renews my belief that Religion should never try to justify itself in Science (or vice versa). I always get a good chuckle when I catch one of those televangelists trying to use science against itself to support their spurious beliefs that have no founding in either scripture of reality. I called my daughter in the other day to listen to this guy who was "splaining" how science proves that homosexuality was wrong. It was good to see that she was able to pick up on the various fallacies and errata that man employed.

 

[Mr Spinkles]

I quite agree with this, and again assert that for either of us to claim that we have a lock on what the original authors were trying to say would be shameless arrogance.

I agree. At the same time, I don't think it would be shameless arrogance to use the tools we have to critically analyze the text and examine those conclusions which most readily present themselves. In fact, I think it's important that we do so with not only Genesis but creation stories from all traditions.

Quite possibly they were trying to rectify reality with their perceived reality then: much as we do today.

Well said! :clap

 

[Quiddity]

However you want to say it - science reconciled to religion or vice versa. One of the Early Church fathers, Clement of Alexander put a scientific spin to the cause of perversion. To quote from Paedagogus 2.10 as found in one of my articles http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/article.php?a=39 You'll notice that there is reference within to other writers which I presume may be called Early Church writers.

And your point is?

~Victor

 

[Quiddity]

Victor, I fail to see how the following (in reference to your evasive answer to his question regarding the emergence of birds with respect to other animals)

"This is an instructive example of how some reconcile religion with science."

is equivalent to "religion is trying to reconcile with science" and therefore by extension that all early Church writings were aimed at (or even concerned with) reconciling religion and science. Nor do I see how the fact that many early Church writings were not intended to/aimed at reconciling religion with science conflicts with the position that the Genesis story and evolution are incompatible.

MS, I have already answered this in an earlier post. Any reconciliation/struggle in the early Church only proves my point. Nothing official, but men spewing their thoughts.

~Victor

 

[Pah]

However you want to say it - science reconciled to religion or vice versa. One of the Early Church fathers, Clement of Alexander put a scientific spin to the cause of perversion. To quote from Paedagogus 2.10 as found in one of my articles http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/article.php?a=39 You'll notice that there is reference within to other writers which I presume may be called Early Church writers.

And your point is?

~Victor

However you want to say it - science reconciled to religion or vice versa. One of the Early Church fathers, Clement of Alexander put a scientific spin to the cause of perversion.

Any reconciliation/struggle in the early Church only proves my point. Nothing official, but men spewing their thoughts.

I suppose this is selective as to what is authority and what isn't? How is one to discriminate good "spewing" from bad "spewing" especially since tradition plays a big role in the early formation of Christianity. Might not some of Paul be bad "spewing" in light of the absence of the words of Jesus? If it's all good "spewing" in the NT and there are parts of Paedagogus taken as good "spewing" how do you determine what is good or bad? In the realm of science, there is a temptation to accept "good" science as the Pope accepts evolution and still the denial of what science says about God.

 

[James the Persian]

However you want to say it - science reconciled to religion or vice versa. One of the Early Church fathers, Clement of Alexander put a scientific spin to the cause of perversion.
I suppose this is selective as to what is authority and what isn't? How is one to discriminate good "spewing" from bad "spewing" especially since tradition plays a big role in the early formation of Christianity. Might not some of Paul be bad "spewing" in light of the absence of the words of Jesus? If it's all good "spewing" in the NT and there are parts of Paedagogus taken as good "spewing" how do you determine what is good or bad? In the realm of science, there is a temptation to accept "good" science as the Pope accepts evolution and still the denial of what science says about God.

The point you appear to be missing is that it is not the writings of a single Father that Holy Tradition espouses (many have made mistakes), but the concensus of all the Fathers. If Clement made a mistake (and here he evidently did, through no fault of his own, by accepting as fact the scientific thought of his day) then that is his mistake alone and is not binding on the Church.

You are right, though, that many Church Fathers attempted to reconcile their beliefs with the science of the day. There is nothing wrong with this. Sometimes such attempts aided them in explaining theology to people who already accepted such ideas as fact, sometimes they were personal attempts to reconcile the material knowledge of their time with theology.

James

 

[Pah]

The point you appear to be missing is that it is not the writings of a single Father that Holy Tradition espouses (many have made mistakes), but the concensus of all the Fathers. If Clement made a mistake (and here he evidently did, through no fault of his own, by accepting as fact the scientific thought of his day) then that is his mistake alone and is not binding on the Church.

Though I have no information on whether others disagreed with Clement, I do know, from my memory of reading Boswell, that several of the fathers did agree and when the science was shown to be wrong, Clement's explanation still influenced religious thought for a few hundred years.

Consensus, or majority, of any group is a poor way to derive truth. It fails repeatedly in history and even in constitutional law and judgements. I did not miss the point, I disagree with it whole heartedly. What succeeds in this case is the validation you supply in your relationship with the Holy Ghost. Revelation, personal revelation, is the only certitude in God's realm or so I believe and accept.

You are right, though, that many Church Fathers attempted to reconcile their beliefs with the science of the day. There is nothing wrong with this. Sometimes such attempts aided them in explaining theology to people who already accepted such ideas as fact, sometimes they were personal attempts to reconcile the material knowledge of their time with theology.

James

I agree. I was only addressing a statement that the early fathers did not "reconcile" science to religion (or was it the other way round?). This is one instance where it is documented.

 

[James the Persian]

Consensus, or majority, of any group is a poor way to derive truth. It fails repeatedly in history and even in constitutional law and judgements. I did not miss the point, I disagree with it whole heartedly. What succeeds in this case is the validation you supply in your relationship with the Holy Ghost. Revelation, personal revelation, is the only certitude in God's realm or so I believe and accept.

Ah, but Patristic Concensus does not mean the view of the majority at any one time. In fact, during certain periods of Church history it has distnictly been the minority that have held to the Patristic Concensus. It's actually the concensus of all the Fathers from the beginning of the Church up to now (and, yes, we have modern Church Fathers also). If anyone contradicts what has gone before then the view is not part of the concesus, even if 99% of the living faithful were to agree. It is also not that we derive truth from the Concensus, but that the Concensus is evidence of the truth. We believe that the Holy Spirit guides the Church and that the Church as a whole cannot fall into heresy as a result. The Patristic Concensus, then, is the mind of the Church expressed in writing, but the Church, and not the Fathers (save insofar as they are members of the Church), is the source of the truth. With respect to the topic under consideration, individual Fathers may have tried to reconcile theology and science (though many did not) but the Church as a whole never has. She has taken that which is useful in the science of the day to help explain Her theology, but there has never been any sense that faith and science must be reconciled. Given the different areas addressed by the two, it is hard to see how they ever could be.

James

 

[Quiddity]

However you want to say it - science reconciled to religion or vice versa. One of the Early Church fathers, Clement of Alexander put a scientific spin to the cause of perversion.
I suppose this is selective as to what is authority and what isn't? How is one to discriminate good "spewing" from bad "spewing" especially since tradition plays a big role in the early formation of Christianity. Might not some of Paul be bad "spewing" in light of the absence of the words of Jesus? If it's all good "spewing" in the NT and there are parts of Paedagogus taken as good "spewing" how do you determine what is good or bad? In the realm of science, there is a temptation to accept "good" science as the Pope accepts evolution and still the denial of what science says about God.

I explained what is and what isn't dogma to you already Pah. It was too narrow a definition for you and I think James did and excellent job of explaining how I understand it as well. Of course there is a difference between us but I'm willing to take his explanation for the sake of the topic at hand.

~Victor

 

[Pah]

I'll carry this no further. It is off topic and I'm tired of investing my time with the tangent against the reluctance to understand what I have said..

Evolution, when carried to abiogenisus, is extremely harmful to the thought of there being a God (by itself, I do not think it poses a threat). We already have an explanation of how the world was created. If evolution is the mechanism of abiogenisus, then there is but the Big Bang remaining. It can not be shown that the common image of God is anything but a deist creator. The "god of the gaps" is in danger of being diminished further.

 

[Scuba Pete]

Evolution, when carried to abiogenisus, is extremely harmful to the thought of there being a God (by itself, I do not think it poses a threat).

For me, abiogenesis is one of the proofs that God exists! This would make it anything but harmful. But I can understand your reticence to continue on when no one seems to understand or agree with your points.

 

[Fatmop]

For me, abiogenesis is one of the proofs that God exists!

It seens like anything can be one of the proofs that God exists.

 

[mr.guy]

I thought that was the whole point?