Why I believe God Created Life.

[metis]

The problem with this approach is purposefully picking and choosing texts from the BIble, usually ones that sound ludicrous and embarrassing nowadays, and classifying them as "an allegory." These passages are always the ones that have been rebutted by science in the past 200 years, aren't they?

If the creation texts should be seen as "an allegory", why shouldn't we interpret the rest of the holy books as allegory as well? More or less this is what happened to earlier religions, like the Greek and Roman polytheistic beliefs. Otherwise, it's just too convenient.

Remember that the creation accounts were written by Jews to Jews within a Jewish paradigm. Our traditional writings used many writing techniques, such as what you find in the Psalms or even Revelations, for just two examples.

Therefore, with us, we continually try to understand "the meaning behind the words". IOW, what is the author trying to tell us?

This is an imprecise art, of course, so we have for roughly 2500 years been using a "commentary system" whereas our sages and any other Jew can write down how they may interpret a particular narrative. Therefore, instead of saying X is the correct interpretation, we can read the narratives for ourselves and then look at the various interpretations if we need help trying to better understand it.

Therefore, there were many differing interpretations of the creation accounts, with some being mostly literal and some believing that the allegorical approach was more likely correct. For example, one of our most favored sages, Moshe Maimonides, around seven or so centuries ago, long before the world knew anything about evolution in the scientific sense, hypothesized that these accounts were probably allegorical. Some Jews agreed with him and some didn't.

As we now know a lot more about the evolutionary process, most Jews basically have drifted into one form or another of the allegorical approach, but certainly not all do, and that's fine. One of the strengths of the "commentary system" is that it has built in flexibility that's not based on theological dishonesty but based on the fact that we have allowed different approaches to become part of our paradigm, so new information can be more likely accepted.

 

[rusra02]

The problem with this approach is purposefully picking and choosing texts from the BIble, usually ones that sound ludicrous and embarrassing nowadays, and classifying them as "an allegory." These passages are always the ones that have been rebutted by science in the past 200 years, aren't they?

If the creation texts should be seen as "an allegory", why shouldn't we interpret the rest of the holy books as allegory as well? More or less this is what happened to earlier religions, like the Greek and Roman polytheistic beliefs. Otherwise, it's just too convenient.

Trying to reconcile what the Bible teaches as historical fact, and what evolution claims is futile, IMO. Trying to discredit the Bible's historical accuracy by claiming it is allegory is likewise futile. The Bible provides a consistent and coherent history of God's dealings with mankind; in fact, the only consistent, coherent history that reaches back to mankind's start. Time and again, critics of the Bible's historicity have had to retreat as new discoveries confirmed the Bible's historical correctness. I believe it is as Romans 3:3,4 expresses:"What, then, is the case? If some lacked faith, will their lack of faith invalidate the faithfulness of God? *Certainly not! But let God be found true, even if every man be found a liar, just as it is written: “That you might be proved righteous in your words and might win when you are being judged.”"

 

[Gordian Knot]

Ummm, the Bible is not the only mythology that deals back to mankind's start. Most every major religion has a creation story. If the bible version does it for you, fine. Do recognize that is your personal opinion though.

 

[outhouse]

Time and again, critics of the Bible's historicity have had to retreat as new discoveries confirmed the Bible's historical correctness.

That does not match what they teach in every major college around the whole world.


Education and knowledge show that not to be true.

 

[starless]

And I don't see a problem with that.

Allegories tell a story, even if the story isn't some actual historical story. Allegories have the purpose to tell truths through the story. As an example, when you take math class, you will be presented with stories like "Bob and Steve had one bike. Bob walked to the store, and Steve took the bike, but he started one hour after Bob. ... blah blah..." The purpose of doing that is to put you, as a reader, into a situation where you have to solve something. The story is the carrier of the information. There never was Steve or Bob going to the store, or maybe there was, but that's no important. What's important is to know that Bob got there first anyway because the bike broke down...

As humans, we think and process knowledge and information in illustrations and images. We even have a whole multibillion dollar industry around it... TV, movies, shows, books, audiobooks, ... It's all about the stories and what they do to us and what they mean.

If you are suggesting that holy books should be simply regarded as mythologies, fables and folklore, I completely concur.

I also agree that allegorical stories, which existed in folklore as an oral tradition even before writing was invented, have been useful and didactic.

But this is not the case with holy books. They are regarded as the truth, the only truth and the word of god. Now that we know how the universe came into existence, how the Earth and Sun were formed, how life most probably originated and evolved, where diseases come from, how natural cataclysms happen, how man evolved, how slavery, homophobia and subjugation of women is wrong, religious zealots come to the rescue claiming certain parts of the holy book should not be taken literally. But not the whole book, only certain parts that have now been discredited. The problem with this selective reading is that it gives license to anyone to interpret the texts as they see fit.

And when you believe the book is the word of God and it's telling you certain things, well then we all know what might happen.

 

[Ouroboros]

If you are suggesting that holy books should be simply regarded as mythologies, fables and folklore, I completely concur.

Kind'a. Mythology carries value. I don't see them as just lies, untrue stories, etc, but rather the basket with which other truths are told. Truths that can't be expressed in direct terms and can only be conveyed in wrappers.

I also agree that allegorical stories, which existed in folklore as an oral tradition even before writing was invented, have been useful and didactic.

But this is not the case with holy books. They are regarded as the truth, the only truth and the word of god. Now that we know how the universe came into existence, how the Earth and Sun were formed, how life most probably originated and evolved, where diseases come from, how natural cataclysms happen, how man evolved, how slavery, homophobia and subjugation of women is wrong, religious zealots come to the rescue claiming certain parts of the holy book should not be taken literally. But not the whole book, only certain parts that have now been discredited. The problem with this selective reading is that it gives license to anyone to interpret the texts as they see fit.

Some religious people consider their holy books as literal truths, but some don't. Those who consider them as guidelines, maps to get to the destination, but not the destination itself, might be the "grown up that eat meat and don't have to drink milk" as Paul suggests. Literalism might be a childish attitude. The book(s) aren't more holy than what they bring to the person reading them.

And when you believe the book is the word of God and it's telling you certain things, well then we all know what might happen.

In those cases they're immature, in my opinion.

 

[starless]

Remember that the creation accounts were written by Jews to Jews within a Jewish paradigm. Our traditional writings used many writing techniques, such as what you find in the Psalms or even Revelations, for just two examples.

Therefore, with us, we continually try to understand "the meaning behind the words". IOW, what is the author trying to tell us?

This is an imprecise art, of course, so we have for roughly 2500 years been using a "commentary system" whereas our sages and any other Jew can write down how they may interpret a particular narrative. Therefore, instead of saying X is the correct interpretation, we can read the narratives for ourselves and then look at the various interpretations if we need help trying to better understand it.

Therefore, there were many differing interpretations of the creation accounts, with some being mostly literal and some believing that the allegorical approach was more likely correct. For example, one of our most favored sages, Moshe Maimonides, around seven or so centuries ago, long before the world knew anything about evolution in the scientific sense, hypothesized that these accounts were probably allegorical. Some Jews agreed with him and some didn't.

As we now know a lot more about the evolutionary process, most Jews basically have drifted into one form or another of the allegorical approach, but certainly not all do, and that's fine. One of the strengths of the "commentary system" is that it has built in flexibility that's not based on theological dishonesty but based on the fact that we have allowed different approaches to become part of our paradigm, so new information can be more likely accepted.

I understand what you are saying. But as we uncover more and more about the reality of our existence, shouldn't we all come to a point where the scales are tipped and we decide once and for all that religious texts in whole should be taken allegorically?

I am not downplaying the historical and literary importance of Abrahamic religions, but fables and fairly-tales (which existed in oral tradition for millennia) also contain salient teachings and morals, still they are not taken seriously and revered as the truth.

 

[Bunyip]

Silly people who cannot see that a fruit fly changing into a fruit fly is not macroevolution.

You prove my point rather perfectly. Thanks.

A fruit fly species becoming two fruit fly species is in fact exactly what macro evolution means.

A fruit fly becoming something else is Harry Potter, not macro evolution.

If all living species came from the Ark over the last few thousand years, THAT would infer macro evolutionary transitions at a rate far, far faster than biology has ever argued to be possible with selection.

So what you are mocking as impossible is in fact your world view, not that of science. Science claims that macro evolution is proven, and it is. You claim that macro evolution is not demonstrable, amd moreover is absurd and yet adhere to a religious apprehension that relies on exactly the phenomenon you reject (macro evolution) happening almost infinitely faster than the theory of evolution has ever posited to be possible.

As I said, every single one of your objections to evolution without exception is drawn from a misconception.

Macro evolution means an evolutionary transition at or above the species level - such as when a fruit fly species diverges into two fruite fly species.

 

[metis]

I understand what you are saying. But as we uncover more and more about the reality of our existence, shouldn't we all come to a point where the scales are tipped and we decide once and for all that religious texts in whole should be taken allegorically?

I am not downplaying the historical and literary importance of Abrahamic religions, but fables and fairly-tales (which existed in oral tradition for millennia) also contain salient teachings and morals, still they are not taken seriously and revered as the truth.

Actually you have hit on my approach to all scripture in any religion, namely to see all the narratives as allegory or metaphors, deriving from them the basic teachings of morality and values. By taking this approach, I need not worry much about whether a particular narrative is historically accurate.

 

[McBell]

To call the ToE "a failing theory" is just so bizarre and devoid of any reality.

It does reveal the level of delusion some people are willing to undertake in order to protect their beliefs.

 

[rusra02]

You prove my point rather perfectly. Thanks.

A fruit fly species becoming two fruit fly species is in fact exactly what macro evolution means.

A fruit fly becoming something else is Harry Potter, not macro evolution.

If all living species came from the Ark over the last few thousand years, THAT would infer macro evolutionary transitions at a rate far, far faster than biology has ever argued to be possible with selection.

So what you are mocking as impossible is in fact your world view, not that of science. Science claims that macro evolution is proven, and it is. You claim that macro evolution is not demonstrable, amd moreover is absurd and yet adhere to a religious apprehension that relies on exactly the phenomenon you reject (macro evolution) happening almost infinitely faster than the theory of evolution has ever posited to be possible.

As I said, every single one of your objections to evolution without exception is drawn from a misconception.

Macro evolution means an evolutionary transition at or above the species level - such as when a fruit fly species diverges into two fruite fly species.

I guess it depends on your definition of that squirmy, smarmy word "evolution". What is a species, for that matter? This quote shows the relationship of species to kinds: "The Biblical “kinds” seem to constitute divisions of life-forms wherein each division allows for cross-fertility within its limits. If so, then the boundary between “kinds” is to be drawn at the point where fertilization ceases to occur.

In recent years, the term “species” has been applied in such a manner as to cause confusion when it is compared with the word “kind.” The basic meaning of “species” is “a sort; kind; variety.” In biologic terminology, however, it applies to any group of interfertile animals or plants mutually possessing one or more distinctive characteristics. Thus, there could be many such species or varieties within a single division of the Genesis “kinds.” (IT-2 p152)
Thus what scientists choose to call the evolution of a new species is simply a matter of variation within a “kind,” as the word is used in the Genesis account.
What you call "macroevolution" is nothing more than the ability of a single kind to produce a great variety of features. We have to look no further than to humanKIND, a vast array of divergent features, sizes, skin colors, but all with the ability to interbreed and produce more of their kind. Macro evolution's claim that all life forms "evolved" from one family or kind to another is demonstrably false. What evolutionists call speciation is nothing more than the variety that God created in living things.

 

[rusra02]

Ummm, the Bible is not the only mythology that deals back to mankind's start. Most every major religion has a creation story. If the bible version does it for you, fine. Do recognize that is your personal opinion though.

History is not mythology. The myths of pagan religion bear as much resemblance to the Bible's coherent history as a tent does to a palace.

 

[rusra02]

That does not match what they teach in every major college around the whole world.


Education and knowledge show that not to be true.

For example?

 

[Bunyip]

I guess it depends on your definition of that squirmy, smarmy word "evolution". What is a species, for that matter? This quote shows the relationship of species to kinds: "The Biblical “kinds” seem to constitute divisions of life-forms wherein each division allows for cross-fertility within its limits. If so, then the boundary between “kinds” is to be drawn at the point where fertilization ceases to occur.

Well evolution is defined as changes in allele frequency over time - thise changes are of course observable fact.

By your definition of 'kind' a species of fruit fly evolving into two sepcies of fruit fly that are no longer cross fertile is still an observed example of macro evolution.

Kinds diverging from a single cross fertile group into two or more groups that are no longer cross fertile is a phenomenon that has been directly observed many times over the last century.

In recent years, the term “species” has been applied in such a manner as to cause confusion when it is compared with the word “kind.” The basic meaning of “species” is “a sort; kind; variety.” In biologic terminology, however, it applies to any group of interfertile animals or plants mutually possessing one or more distinctive characteristics. Thus, there could be many such species or varieties within a single division of the Genesis “kinds.” (IT-2 p152)
Thus what scientists choose to call the evolution of a new species is simply a matter of variation within a “kind,” as the word is used in the Genesis account.

As I said, the emergence of new 'kinds' as you define them has been observed.

[

What you call "macroevolution" is nothing more than the ability of a single kind to produce a great variety of features. We have to look no further than to humanKIND, a vast array of divergent features, sizes, skin colors, but all with the ability to interbreed and produce more of their kind. Macro evolution's claim that all life forms "evolved" from one family or kind to another is demonstrably false. What evolutionists call speciation is nothing more than the variety that God created in living things.

Speciation, and using your definitions - the emergence of new 'kinds' has been observed and is thus a proven fact.

 

[McBell]

History is not mythology. The myths of pagan religion bear as much resemblance to the Bible's coherent history as a tent does to a palace.

this is nothing but wishful thinking on your part.

 

[rusra02]

Well evolution is defined as changes in allele frequency over time - thise changes are of course observable fact.

By your definition of 'kind' a species of fruit fly evolving into two sepcies of fruit fly that are no longer cross fertile is still an observed example of macro evolution.

Kinds diverging from a single cross fertile group into two or more groups that are no longer cross fertile is a phenomenon that has been directly observed many times over the last century.



As I said, the emergence of new 'kinds' as you define them has been observed.

[

Speciation, and using your definitions - the emergence of new 'kinds' has been observed and is thus a proven fact.

Sources for your claim that fruit flies are fertile but not cross-fertile?

 

[rusra02]

this is nothing but wishful thinking on your part.

No, it is a conclusion I reached based on study of the Bible and the historical evidence supporting the Bible's history.

 

[McBell]

No, it is a conclusion I reached based on study of the Bible and the historical evidence supporting the Bible's history.

It is still nothing more than wishful thinking.

 

[Bunyip]

Sources for your claim that fruit flies are fertile but not cross-fertile?

According to YOUR definition of 'kind' there are many thousands of distinct'kinds' of fruit fly. And more than 150,000 'kinds' of fly.

And yes, those 'kinds' are not cross fertile.

There are also 2 distinct kinds' of dogs according to your definition. Lycaon pictus and Canis familiaris are two distinct and non cross fertile 'kinds'.

 

[rusra02]

According to YOUR definition of 'kind' there are many thousands of distinct'kinds' of fruit fly. And more than 150,000 'kinds' of fly.

And yes, those 'kinds' are not cross fertile.

There are also 2 distinct kinds' of dogs according to your definition. Lycaon pictus and Canis familiaris are two distinct and non cross fertile 'kinds'.

You have not identified your source for your claims. But taking what you claim at face value, if there are 150k types of fly that cannot interbreed, then so be it. I am confident there are many kinds of fish and amphibians that likewise cannot interbreed. That is not the same thing as producing a viable fruit fly that cannot interbreed with other sibling fruit flies but can interbreed with "new species" fruit flies.