Sherlock holmes and evolution

[sin_is_fun]

Pseudo sciences like 'scientific Creationism' and 'intellectural design' are not even theories.An evolutionary scientist has a sceintific theory to explain the phenomena.His opponent, the creationist doesnt even have a theory to counter it.His theory consists of a string of criticisms on evolution.His logic is as follows

1.There are only two options.Either evolution or creation.
2.Evolution has these problems.Hence evolution is incorrect.
3.Thus creationism is true.

Actually this is the methodology of sherlock holmes.He said "When all options except one is ruled out,the last option remaining-irrespective of how improbable it sounds,must be true"

So the argument of creationists is "Creation is true since evolution is false"
Except criticizing evolution they dont have much of a theory.

But actually it is the other way around.

"Evolution is true since creationism is false"

Removing evolution from picture if we examine creationism there isnt an iota of proof to it.Creationists cannot prove the existence of a creator.They cannot come up with a scientific date for creation.They cannot say the method in which creationism took place.To cut a long story short the evidence they have is Zilch.Zero,no proof.no theory,,nothing.Hence creationism is ruled out as false.

Now the last option remaining, evolution must be true according to sherlock holmes methodology.However deficient it sounds,however unacceptable it sounds it must be true because there is no other option.

So the debate question I put forward in this forum is as follows

1) Forget evolution.Talk only about creationism.Is creationism true?If yes give the availaible proof.

2) If you cannot give proof then creationism is ruled out.Thus the only remaining option is evolution.Thus

Is evolution proved by falsification of creationism?

[harvey1]

you have to redefine 'day' here.It becomes meaningless to say 6 days.If we say day=billions of years,something is wrong.

The days in Genesis don't have to be longer than 24 hours. If you read the text carefully the text never says that these days are contiguous. Day 1 might be 4.5 billion years ago when the sun first underwent a nuclear fusion process, and day 2 could have been a few hundred million years later. The Genesis account doesn't say how much time occurred between each day.

[McCulloch]

The days in Genesis don't have to be longer than 24 hours. If you read the text carefully the text never says that these days are contiguous. Day 1 might be 4.5 billion years ago when the sun first underwent a nuclear fusion process, and day 2 could have been a few hundred million years later. The Genesis account doesn't say how much time occurred between each day.

There was evening and there was morning, one day.
There was evening and there was morning, a second day.
There was evening and there was morning, a third day.
There was evening and there was morning, a fourth day.
There was evening and there was morning, a fifth day.
There was evening and there was morning, a sixth day.

I really don't think that you can honestly fit several million extra days into a literal rendering of Genesis. It does not say "There was evening and there were several billion other days and there was morning, a 1.64 trillionth day." The use of the words "second", "third", "fourth", "fifth" and "sixth" implies that the days are contiguous.

[harvey1]

I really don't think that you can honestly fit several million extra days into a literal rendering of Genesis. It does not say "There was evening and there were several billion other days and there was morning, a 1.64 trillionth day." The use of the words "second", "third", "fourth", "fifth" and "sixth" implies that the days are contiguous.

First off, the Hebrews didn't end the day until sunset. Also, there's other scriptures that do the same thing and it is much more clear that large time periods are left out.

I'm not saying that this is how the writer conceived of this issue, however if they did conceive of God doing creative acts over a period of a much larger timeframe, then they might have used the same words. Hebrews were not extraordinary specific in their writings, so it is possible that the writer merely wanted to point out that each time God became involved in making a decree, that this was a "day." In other words, God made six decrees to make the earth according to Genesis. The only question is whether these were contiguous or not, and like I said, it is not necessarily the case that they were contiguous. First, second, third, etc., may not be a reference to days of a week, they might be references to the sequence number of decrees. These sequence numbers refer to a particular day.

So, for example, if I said: "Okay, let me tell you the story of the key moments that happened to the U.S. since 1940 where each event happened in just one day":

Day 1: Pearl Harbor attack happened that caused the U.S. to enter into WWII; by the evening the day was over.
Day 2: The U.S. tested a nuclear bomb in White Sands, New Mexico which dawned the nuclear age for humanity
Day 3: The U.S. president John F. Kennedy was assinated that changed forever the innocence of the U.S.
Day 4: U.S. president Richard M. Nixon resigned from office because of Watergate; this event forever changed American politics
Day 5: U.S. president Ronald Reagan told the Soviet Union in a key speech to tear down the Berlin Wall. This speech is seen as historic since soon after that the Berlin Wall came tumbling down along with it the threat of atheist communism
Day 6: Terrorists flew planes into two towers in Manhatten and forever changed the world of innocence where now a few crazy people could be considered a threat to the entire world
Day 7: Jesus comes and brings the Kingdom of God, the world is at rest.

Okay, now aside from my fun in Day 7, there's nothing incongruent in this approach. I'm just telling you the important dates in U.S. history. Some might think they are not so important, but that's a matter of interpetation.

[micatala]

The days question is an old one, and I think it is fair to say that there is no consensus among scholars that they must mean 24 hours, although certainly many will think so.

The link I posted earlier also addresses the catholic position on the time question, and allows that the days may not mean 6 actual 24 hour periods. THey discuss what they call a 'topical' interpretation of the text, versus a chronological reading. Here is the excerpt.

Chronological Reading



According to the chronological reading, the six days of creation should be understood to have followed each other in strict chronological order. This view is often coupled with the claim that the six days were standard 24-hour days.

Some have denied that they were standard days on the basis that the Hebrew word used in this passage for day (yom) can sometimes mean a longer-than-24-hour period (as it does in Genesis 2:4). However, it seems clear that Genesis 1 presents the days to us as standard days. At the end of each one is a formula like, "And there was evening and there was morning, one day" (Gen. 1:5). Evening and morning are, of course, the transition points between day and night (this is the meaning of the Hebrew terms here), but periods of time longer than 24 hours are not composed of a day and a night. Genesis is presenting these days to us as 24-hour, solar days. If we are not meant to understand them as 24-hour days, it would most likely be because Genesis 1 is not meant to be understood as a literal chronological account.

That is a possibility. Pope Pius XII warned us, "What is the literal sense of a passage is not always as obvious in the speeches and writings of the ancient authors of the East, as it is in the works of our own time. For what they wished to express is not to be determined by the rules of grammar and philology alone, nor solely by the context; the interpreter must, as it were, go back wholly in spirit to those remote centuries of the East and with the aid of history, archaeology, ethnology, and other sciences, accurately determine what modes of writing, so to speak, the authors of that ancient period would be likely to use, and in fact did use. For the ancient peoples of the East, in order to express their ideas, did not always employ those forms or kinds of speech which we use today; but rather those used by the men of their times and countries. What those exactly were the commentator cannot determine as it were in advance, but only after a careful examination of the ancient literature of the East" (Divino Afflante Spiritu 35–36).


The Topical Reading



This leads us to the possiblity that Genesis 1 is to be given a non-chronological, topical reading. Advocates of this view point out that, in ancient literature, it was common to sequence historical material by topic, rather than in strict chronological order.

The argument for a topical ordering notes that at the time the world was created, it had two problems—it was "formless and empty" (1:2). In the first three days of creation, God solves the formlessness problem by structuring different aspects of the environment.

On day one he separates day from night; on day two he separates the waters below (oceans) from the waters above (clouds), with the sky in between; and on day three he separates the waters below from each other, creating dry land. Thus the world has been given form.

But it is still empty, so on the second three days God solves the world’s emptiness problem by giving occupants to each of the three realms he ordered on the previous three days. Thus, having solved the problems of formlessness and emptiness, the task he set for himself, God’s work is complete and he rests on the seventh day.

For more discussion on the day (yom in Hebrew) question, see the Biblical Inerrancy thread, as well as the Copernicus vs Darwin thread.

Yes, the plainest interpretation would by 24 hour days, and one could argue (although one would be speculating to some extent) that this is what the original authors intended, but the fact that there is still no consensus on this point, going back to at least Augustine if not further, says to me that we don't have enough information to decide what was meant by the original authors or God based on the text alone.

micatala wrote:

This still won't help the the Holmesian conclusion you are trying to draw, because with the broad definitions you are using, it is possible that parts of creationism are true while parts of evolution are true, and we could insert 'false' for 'true' as well. My 'God created the Universe through the Big Bang' scenario of creationism is not inconsistent with evolution.

sin-is-fun wrote:
But this isnt what Bible says.

Some christians may say so,but as long as it isnt the view of church it doesnt count.

First off, I would say that 'what the Bible says' is anything but clear cut in quite a number of areas. If it were not so, we would not have the controversies we do. Even Paul allows in his letters that there may be disagreement among believers.

Second, which church's view are we going to count as the 'right one?' I have already shown you that your description of catholic doctrine was wrong, and it is clear that catholics allow for a non-literal interpretation of scripture in general, and Genesis in particular. If the catholic view doesn't count then whose does?

It seems to me that you are trying to impute positions to people of faith that they don't really hold or don't all hold in order to create straw-men that you can more easily knock down.

Personal opinions of individuals on scriptures isnt valid.Its the opinion of church and clergy that counts.

You would get a lot of argument on this point from Christians in a number of churches and denominations. The whole point of the Protestant Reformation was that each individual believer be empowered to make his own reading of scripture, without the clergy serving as intermediaries. This view would certainly be held today in a lot of evangelical churches, especially where there is no central body determining doctrine. IT is more a 'market place of ideas' where individuals (and of course preachers) put forward there views and interpretations and let them be weighed by the audience.

I'm not saying we should ignore the clergy or church heirarchies or official church doctrines. In many churches, the doctrines are the product of serious scholarship over many years. However, each individual believer is certainly free to choose from a variety of often conflicting doctrines, or develop one for him or herself. The fun then comes in defending it .

Let me turn the question back on you. Which denominations hold that there was no such thing as physical death, either of man or animals, before the fall?

[McCulloch]

I really don't think that you can honestly fit several million extra days into a literal rendering of Genesis. It does not say "There was evening and there were several billion other days and there was morning, a 1.64 trillionth day." The use of the words "second", "third", "fourth", "fifth" and "sixth" implies that the days are contiguous.

So, for example, if I said: "Okay, let me tell you the story of the key moments that happened to the U.S. since 1940 where each event happened in just one day":

Day 1: Pearl Harbor attack happened that caused the U.S. to enter into WWII; by the evening the day was over.
Day 2: The U.S. tested a nuclear bomb in White Sands, New Mexico which dawned the nuclear age for humanity
Day 3: The U.S. president John F. Kennedy was assinated that changed forever the innocence of the U.S.
Day 4: U.S. president Richard M. Nixon resigned from office because of Watergate; this event forever changed American politics
Day 5: U.S. president Ronald Reagan told the Soviet Union in a key speech to tear down the Berlin Wall. This speech is seen as historic since soon after that the Berlin Wall came tumbling down along with it the threat of atheist communism
Day 6: Terrorists flew planes into two towers in Manhatten and forever changed the world of innocence where now a few crazy people could be considered a threat to the entire world
Day 7: Jesus comes and brings the Kingdom of God, the world is at rest.

Okay, now aside from my fun in Day 7, there's nothing incongruent in this approach. I'm just telling you the important dates in U.S. history. Some might think they are no so important, but that's a matter of interpetation.

But if you included the phrase like "There was evening and there was morning, a second day." I would infer contiguous days. Wouldn't you?

[harvey1]

But if you included the phrase like "There was evening and there was morning, a second day." I would infer contiguous days. Wouldn't you?

And there was evening, and there was morning—the [nth] day.

And God said...

As mentioned, the morning was never considered the beginning of a new day in those times. The beginning of a day was always sunset and lasted until the next sunset. However, a workday started at sunrise and ended in the evening, so these are probably better referred to as workdays. This would take attention away to these being regular contiguous days and suggest something else is the case with these particular days. There might even be a spiritual meaning here. God's actions start in darkness and this brings light to creation.

In addition, I did a search for "next day" in the Hebrew bible, and there's a bunch of instances where this phrase comes up. However, nowhere in the first chapter of Genesis is it ever stated even though it was custom in Hebrew stories to inform the reader of this. That might indicate that unless it was specified, one is not to assume it is the next day. It also seems strange that the Hebrew writer would not follow custom in mentioning that it is the "next day" that is being inferred when it happens everywhere else in the Hebrew text. If Moses is the original writer of these stories, then it would seem strange since most of the references to "next day" is in the "Books of Moses."

Notice, too, that land is told to grow vegetation:

Then God said, "Let the land produce vegetation: seed-bearing plants and trees on the land that bear fruit with seed in it, according to their various kinds." And it was so. The land produced vegetation: plants bearing seed according to their kinds and trees bearing fruit with seed in it according to their kinds. And God saw that it was good.

If the land is told to produce vegetation, it would seem the author would be suggesting that this would take a great deal of time. So, it would seem strange if the land did this in one day. It doesn't fit in with the notion that this day was followed immediately by the next work day.

And, one other thing, when referring to some of the Jewish festivals, the Hebrew bible always talks about the last seven days that the festivals occurred in. But, notice, this wording is avoided in Genesis:

Thus the heavens and the earth were completed in all their vast array. By the seventh day God had finished the work he had been doing; so on the seventh day he rested from all his work. And God blessed the seventh day and made it holy, because on it he rested from all the work of creating that he had done.

Compare that to this search where seven days are treated contiguously.

I think the vagueness of Hebrew interpetation require that we not form any solid conclusions on this issue. The Hebrews were much more tangible than we are. They had less familiarity in engaging in abstract thought, therefore they were more likely to state "next day," "the last seven days," etc., when trying to make the reader aware that these were connected days. Since this is not the case here, the writer might have just assumed that the reader knew that when land produces vegetation that this takes years to do that.

Something to consider...

[McCulloch]

But if you included the phrase like "There was evening and there was morning, a second day." I would infer contiguous days. Wouldn't you?

As mentioned, the morning was never considered the beginning of a new day in those times. The beginning of a day was always sunset and lasted until the next sunset. However, a workday started at sunrise and ended in the evening, so these are probably better referred to as workdays. This would take attention away to these being regular contiguous days and suggest something else is the case with these particular days. There might even be a spiritual meaning here. God's actions start in darkness and this brings light to creation.
In addition, I did a search for "next day" in the Hebrew bible, and there's a bunch of instances where this phrase comes up. However, nowhere in the first chapter of Genesis is it ever stated even though it was custom in Hebrew stories to inform the reader of this. That might indicate that unless it was specified, one is not to assume it is the next day. It also seems strange that the Hebrew writer would not follow custom in mentioning that it is the "next day" that is being inferred when it happens everywhere else in the Hebrew text. If Moses is the original writer of these stories, then it would seem strange since most of the references to "next day" is in the "Books of Moses."
Notice, too, that land is told to grow vegetation:

Then God said, "Let the land produce vegetation: seed-bearing plants and trees on the land that bear fruit with seed in it, according to their various kinds." And it was so. The land produced vegetation: plants bearing seed according to their kinds and trees bearing fruit with seed in it according to their kinds. And God saw that it was good.

If the land is told to produce vegetation, it would seem the author would be suggesting that this would take a great deal of time. So, it would seem strange if the land did this in one day. It doesn't fit in with the notion that this day was followed immediately by the next work day.

What can't the god who created the stars in one day create full grown vegetables in one day?

And, one other thing, when referring to some of the Jewish festivals, the Hebrew bible always talks about the last seven days that the festivals occurred in. But, notice, this wording is avoided in Genesis:

Thus the heavens and the earth were completed in all their vast array. By the seventh day God had finished the work he had been doing; so on the seventh day he rested from all his work. And God blessed the seventh day and made it holy, because on it he rested from all the work of creating that he had done.

Compare that to this search where seven days are treated contiguously.

So in this instance, the seventh day, 'seven' and 'day' are to be taken literally as the basis for the sabbath law.

I think the vagueness of Hebrew interpetation require that we not form any solid conclusions on this issue. The Hebrews were much more tangible than we are. They had less familiarity in engaging in abstract thought, therefore they were more likely to state "next day," "the last seven days," etc., when trying to make the reader aware that these were connected days. Since this is not the case here, the writer might have just assumed that the reader knew that when land produces vegetation that this takes years to do that.

Or not. Simply speculation.

[sin_is_fun]

The days in Genesis don't have to be longer than 24 hours. If you read the text carefully the text never says that these days are contiguous. Day 1 might be 4.5 billion years ago when the sun first underwent a nuclear fusion process, and day 2 could have been a few hundred million years later. The Genesis account doesn't say how much time occurred between each day.

But Earth was created on day 1,plants on day 3, sun and stars on day 4.So was earth created billions of years before sun?Were plants created millions of years before sun?


(I give an idea.Day 1 need not have happened first. Nowhere does Genesis say day 1 happened first. Here 1 refers to a metaphor.Day 4 happened first,then after billions of years day 1 happened...after hundreds of millions of years day 3 happened..... )

[sin_is_fun]

Pope Pius XII declared that "the teaching authority of the Church does not forbid that, in conformity with the present state of human sciences and sacred theology, research and discussions . . . take place with regard to the doctrine of evolution, in as far as it inquires into the origin of the human body as coming from pre-existent and living matter—[but] the Catholic faith obliges us to hold that souls are immediately created by God" (Pius XII, Humani Generis 36). So whether the human body was specially created or developed, we are required to hold as a matter of Catholic faith that the human soul is specially created; it did not evolve, and it is not inherited from our parents, as our bodies are.

While the Church permits belief in either special creation or developmental creation on certain questions, it in no circumstances permits belief in atheistic evolution.

This does not seem to allow for the idea that there was no such thing as physical death before the fall, which is the position I believe you are imputing to all major denominations.[/quote]

when you talk about 'spiritual creation of soul' you dont talk science.The moment you accept evolution of physical body and creation of soul,it means that evolution theory is endorsed by believers.science has nothing to do with souls being created.It doesnt have any theory on soul.

So there need to be no opposition for teaching evolution in schools,I guess.If intelligent design and scientific creationism now talk only about soul,then they have no place in schools.

If such a solution is acceptable to all I am very happy.I welcome this whole heartedly.

Also, the passage you quote is not discussing current catholic doctrine, but doctrine going back to the Council of Trent in the 1500's. The Tridentine Decree seems to be from that time, not the present. See here.

From what I can tell, your quote is out of context and reflects catholic doctrine as of 450 years ago.

It was endorsed by Pope in 1986.He did not refuse it.He quoted it and upheld it.

Do religious doctrines change over time?Surprising.I thought they were unchanging eternal truths.

Anyway since you have accepted evolution there isnt much to debate.

[harvey1]

What can't the god who created the stars in one day create full grown vegetables in one day?

Well, the account doesn't necessarily say that. Again, the Hebrews aren't that specific when it comes to their words. The creation of the sun might be the point to when the creation of the sun had been finished in its creation. Regarding the stars, the scripture only states that God made the moon to rule the night (and the stars were made for that purpose too). It doesn't say that the stars were made at that time. So, it's conceivable that the Hebrew author thought of the sun as giving the light starting from Day 1, but felt that it wasn't completed until Day 4. It's also conceivable that the same author believed that the stars existed prior to the Genesis creation. Frankly we cannot know exactly what the author had in mind. I'm just saying that the possible interpretations are very wide and open to interpretation.

So in this instance, the seventh day, 'seven' and 'day' are to be taken literally as the basis for the sabbath law.

What do you mean?

Or not. Simply speculation.

Well, that's all we can do at this point. However, it is interesting to note that the order is correct in Genesis when compared to our evolutionary record. It deserves a little speculation.