Copernicus and Darwin: Why is only one not biblical?

[micatala]

I've brought up this question on a number of threads, and thought it might be worth its own discussion.

The question is:

Why should we (or do you, as the case may be) accept the literal '6-day creation' interpretation of Genesis as the only legitimate interpretation, and not accept the literal interpretation made by many in the 16th and 17th centuries who said that the Copernican system was counter to Holy Scripture?

Stated in another way:

If Martin Luther was wrong about the solar system, why not those who claim evolution is not compatible with the Bible?

I have often asked creationists why it is not possible that the literal interpretation of Genesis 1 and 2 is incorrect, when we know that the literal interprations of Martin Luther, John Calvin, not to mention the Catholic heirarchy, concerning the immobility of the earth were wrong.

My question is really for those who insist there is no other possible interpretation of Genesis other than the YEC version.

My assumption is not that all literal interpretations are wrong, only that this is a definite possibility, and has demonstrably occurred.

I will note that I am a Christian and my goal is certainly not to deprecate or denigrate either Scripture, Christianity, or fellow Christians.

Some of the relevant passages of scripture (I did not do an exhaustive search) are given below in a quote from the God a Part of Evolution? thread.

From Luther:
"This fool [Copernicus] wishes to reverse the entire science of astronomy; but sacred scripture tells us that Joshua commanded the sun to stand still, and not the earth." Luther is referring to Joshua, chapter 10.


Not on the subject of Copernicus, but a quote on the age of the world.

"We know, on the authority of Moses, that longer than six thousand years the world did not exist."

Regarding the inspiration of scripture:
"We should throw the Epistle of James out of this school [the University of Wittenberg]....
This is not really on the subject, but does speak to the issue that not everyone agrees with what should be and what should not be included in scripture.

A quote from Calvin
"Who will venture to place the authority of Copernicus above that of the Holy Spirit?" He is citing Psalm 93:1 in his Commentary on Genesis

and from the same
"We indeed are not ignorant, that the circuit of the heavens is finite, and that the earth, like a little globe, is placed in the center."

"The eyes are witnesses that the heavens revolve in the space of twenty-four hours. But certain men, either from the love of novelty, or to make a display of ingenuity, have concluded that the earth moves; and they maintain that neither the eighth sphere nor the sun revolves.... Now, it is a want of honesty and decency to assert such notions publicly, and the example is pernicious. It is the part of a good mind to accept the truth as revealed by God and to acquiesce in it."
-- Melanchthon, emphasizing Ecclesiastes 1:4-5


Some of the quotes Luther and others cited or may have cited are:
Ps 19:4-5 where the heavens are described as a tent and the sun "a champion rejoicing to run his course." According to the Hebrew view of the universe, the sky was a solid dome under which the planets including the sun moved around the fixed earth. My understanding from a variety fo sources is that they believed in a flat earth, which most Christians later replaced with a fixed but spherical earth at the center of the "sphere of stars." (See Kuhn, for example) This belief was influenced by Aristotle and also the dominant Ptolemaic astronomical system. It is worth noting Genesis 1:6, where God talks about establishing the expanse of sky between the "waters above and the waters below," the former being the source of rain.

Matthew 5:45 " He causes his sun to rise on the evel and the good . . ."

Ps. 104:5 "He set the earth on its foundations; it can never be moved". This idea occurs in a number of other passages.

Ps. 104:19 "The moon marks off the seasons, and the sun knows when to go down."

Ecclesiastes 1:5 "The sun rises and the sun sets, and hurries back to where it rises. The wind blows to the south and turns to the north . . ."

Job 38:4 "Where were you when I laid the earth's foundations? Tell me, if you understand."

"And Isaiah the prophet cried unto the Lord: and he brought the shadow ten degrees backward by which it had gone down in the dial of Ahaz."
-- 2 Kings 20:11

Many years later, of course, we have the more famous events surrounding Galileo.

"... And whereas it has also come to the knowledge of the said Congregation that the Pythagorean doctrine -- which is false and altogether opposed to the Holy Scripture -- of the motion of the Earth and the immobility of the Sun, which is also taught by Nicolaus Copernicus in De Revolutionibus Orbium Coelestium, and by Diego de Zuñiga On Job, is now being spread abroad and accepted by many... Therefore, in order that this opinion may not insinuate itself any further to the prejudice of Catholic truth, the Holy Congregation has decreed that the said Nicolaus Copernicus, De Revolutionibus Orbium, and Diego de Zuñiga, On Job, be suspended until they are corrected."
-- The Roman Catholic Church, from The Decree of the Roman Catholic Congregation of the Index which condemned De Revolutionibus on March 5, 1616

Quotes from Cardinal Bellarmine, who communicated the decree personally to Galileo, can be found in "The Crime of Galileo" by Giorgio de Santillana.


Now, I am not saying that any of these individuals should be deprecated for their quotes or for not accepting the Copernican system. I am also not saying that there understanding of scripture were necessary. Obviously, we have all made our peace with Copernicus and I am certainly not throwing away my bible because of what other people believed it said. My only point is that many people in Copernicus' day and for 100 year or more afterwards believed that Copernicanism was unscriptural.

If we can reconcile Copernicanism with the Bible and Christianity, why not biological evolution?

Consider John 6:63. "The Spirit gives life; the flesh counts for nothing. The words I have spoken to you are spirit and they are life."

It seems to me a reasonable implication of this is that God cares not at all whether we believe in evolution or not. How our flesh got here is not important. What is important is our spiritual being, and it is to this aspect of ourselves that Jesus addresses us. When we are "created in his image," I think this can only mean His spiritual image, as God is spirit.

[The Happy Humanist]

Does this make our courst atheistic? We do not allow 'God did it' explanations as a part of science because it would make science impossible to practice in any meaningful way.

Not at all. First, surely science should be an attempt to find a true explanation of what we observe, not a naturalistic one. What if the true explanation is a supernatural one? Then naturalistic science won't even consider it!

Apropos of this, you might be interested in this topic, in which I wondered about that very thing.

Isolated examples of atheistic scientists is not adequate.

It's more than just "isolated examples". Most of the leading proponents of it have been and are atheists of one sort or another.

I don't suppose it's possible that many arrived at their atheism because of the overwhelming, insurmountable evidence in favor of evolution? Or do you just presume they all started out that way?

there is also the matter of the a priori exclusion of a creator from consideration.

You make this accusation often. Do you have support for it? Your quote from Gould is interesting, but somehow I doubt it's veracity.

Evolution does exclude the idea of a creator creating each kind separately, the specific idea recorded in the Bible.

You are confusing exclusion with conclusion. Darwin did not start with this idea, the data forced him to arrive at it.

I'm sure others will have more to say...

[steen]

micatala wrote:
Quote:
steen wrote:
Of course this does not in any way prove that there is no God but it is pretty compelling evidence that the Genesis version of creation is not literal fact.

Philip Rayment:
The anti-biblical chronology is not scientifically proven. It is a hypothesis that a priori excludes a Creator from consideration.

Micatala:
I would vehementaly disagree that the standard evolutionary and old earth scientific chronologies are anti-biblical.

PR:
They were invented to avoid having to acknowledge a Creator, they are still promoted by many people with that aim, and they exclude consideration of a Creator from their deliberations.

Evolution was not 'invented to avoid having to acknowledge a creator.' It was invented to give an explanation of the evidence we see related to life as it exists, and as it existed in the past.

From here:

Yeah, an "answers in Genesis" claim. AiG has some problems with accuracy.

Harvard’s renowned Professor Stephen Jay Gould is a vigorous anticreationist (and Marxist),

So AiG needs ad hominems to estab;lish the "badness" of Gould to their fundie followers.

and perhaps the most knowledgeable student of the history of evolutionary thought and all things Darwinian.

Not really. He simply is better at writing in prose about it.

I’m glad he and I are on the same side about one thing at least — the real meaning of ‘Darwin’s revolution’. And we both agree that it’s a meaning that the vast majority of people in the world today, nearly a century and a half after Darwin, don’t really want to face up to. Gould argues that Darwin’s theory is inherently anti-plan, anti-purpose, anti-meaning

Other than shortterm adaptation to niches, that is. You can call that a "meaning" if you want to.

(in other words, is pure philosophical materialism).

Nope, that interpretation is downright false.

Also, that Darwin himself knew this very well and meant it to be so.

No evidence of that false claim either. here is a hint. A creationist "because I say so" wishful thinking and ad hominem demonizing doesn't make for facts.

If you have actual evidence that evolution is a conspiracy on the part of atheists past and present, please present.

I never claimed a conspiracy. They are merely trying to explain the world within their worldview. But calling it science.

Science is the exploration of what is observable and measurable in the world around us through the application of the Scientific Method. Are you attacking all science here? because it was all done through application of the Scientific Method.

Isolated examples of atheistic scientists is not adequate.

It's more than just "isolated examples". Most of the leading proponents of it have been and are atheists of one sort or another.

Which doesn't mean that the SToE is anti-christian. If they were all white, would that mean that they were anti-people-of-color? If they were all brown-eyed, would that mean that they were anti-blue-eyeds?

IT seems to me to prove your statement, you need to show that theory of evolution would not exist except for the plotting of atheists.

Apart from Gould that I have quoted above,

Of which your "evidence" was an ad hominem attack with no proof. So you'll have to do better for us to accept "Apart from Gould that I have quoted above."

there is also the matter of the a priori exclusion of a creator from consideration.

Rather, science deals with what can be measured and seen. And the TSoE is what has been shown to occur solely per what is observable. Whether some unseen, super-natural force somehow drives it is not disproven through the SToE. So please don't make misrepresentations.

It is true that evolution is promoted by some people with atheistic aims. This does not make evolution atheistic any more than the fact that some Christians used the Bible to justify slavery means the Bible promotes racism and oppression.

The difference is that the Bible clearly doesn't promote racism and oppression.

And the Scientific Theory of Evolution CLEARLY doesn't speak out against God.

Despite some people misusing the Bible to justify slavery, many other Christians opposed slavery on the basis of their Biblical beliefs. Evolution, on the other hand, is clearly at odds with the Biblical record of creation,

Only to some literalist Bible readers. Christians in general have no problem with Evolution. So again, the problem lies with a few extremists, namely the creationists.

despite the attempts to harmonize the two (by bending the Biblical record to fit evolution).

Ah, like the creationists try to bend TSoE to fit their purposes? Sorry, but Scientists have no interest in harmonizing the Bible or bending anything. They are not proving or disproving the Bible. The Bible is irrelevant to the SToE.

If evolution is atheistic because it does not include consideration of a creator as part of the explanation of naturalistic phenomenon than this means that chemistry, physics, astronomy, mathematics, in fact, probably ALL of science would be considered atheistic.

Evolution does not simply not include consideration of a creator, it specifically excludes the Biblical creator, something that chemistry, etc. doesn't do.

Yes it does. ALL of these scientific fields have generated results that specifically contradicts/disproves Genesis. Your claim is flat-out false. So why are you only attacking Biology?

In fact, so would engineering, our criminal justice system, computer science and engineering, etc. We do not allow 'God did it' explanations in a court of law, for obvious reasons.

Not good examples. The origins of the criminal justice system in many countries can be traced back to the Ten Commandments.

Nope, your claim is false. It tracks back to Magna Carta, the Roman Law. So you need a better claim there. because the one you made is false.

And engineering is based on the presupposition that the laws of physics are fixed. Bridge builders, for example, don't make allowance for the possibility that the strength of gravity will change. This sort of presupposition has a Biblical origin in this world being created by a Creator who Himself doesn't change and who doesn't change the laws of physics.

Really? Because what you claim as accurate Genesis in its very own text is violating those natural laws. So once again is your claim flat-out false. It does look like you need to educate yourself a lot more in these areas.

Why would this be the case if the universe was an accident?

Who said anything about an "accident"?

Why should gravity be a constant?

Why not? (And, technically, gravity is not a constant. Gravity depends on mass and distance. F.ex., the gravity on the moon's surface is less than on Earth. And on Earth, it is more on the surface than 30,000 ft up in a plane.

Does this make our courst atheistic? We do not allow 'God did it' explanations as a part of science because it would make science impossible to practice in any meaningful way.

Not at all. First, surely science should be an attempt to find a true explanation of what we observe, not a naturalistic one. What if the true explanation is a supernatural one? Then naturalistic science won't even consider it!

Only if you can prove it with data. Anything else merely becomes a "because I say so" postulation, just as what you have presented.

Second, whilst the supernatural cannot itself be scientifically studied, it does not follow that a supernatural explanation is beyond investigation.

Quite. If the supernatural powers became evident, then they could be studied and confirmed.

For example, if Darwinian evolution is true, we would predict innumerable intermediate forms of living things,

But there are. You REALLY need to read up on the concept of ring-species. It proves the very issue that you are talking about.

and expect to find plenty of intermediate forms in the fossil record. Darwin himself predicted just this.

And we did just that.

On the other hand, if Biblical creation is true, we would expect to find no intermediate forms between the created kinds, and therefore no fossils of such.

So you are saying that Biblical Creation thus is not true.

Without discussing what is actually found, it should be clear that we can investigate and find out which prediction is borne out. Thus the supernatural explanation is testable. (And the fact that there may be other explanations of this particular observation doesn't change this aspect.)

That would merely show whether one Scientific Theory is valid or not. It doesn't prove alternatives.

This does not make science atheistic at all.

I was talking about evolution, not science, but it does if the supernatural is ruled out of consideration.

Nope.

Evolution itself deals only with how the nature of life on earth has changed over time. It does not include abiogenesis, or the origins of life, or of the universe as a whole.

It depends on how you are using the word. Haven't you ever heard of anyone talking about the evolution of stars?

Yes, and my wife calls our dog "baby." So? Popularization of terminology doesn't change the reality of scientific, specific and accurate terms. That's why we like to use the Scientific terms. They are unambiguous, not leaving room for sophistry and misrepresentations. And no, the Scientific Theory of Evolution does not deal with formation of stars, the solar system, life or anything else. It ONLY deals with how life changes over time between generations.

As such, evolution does NOT exclude the idea of an ultimate creator; this is just an opinion shared by some atheists and some Christians and others who believe in God, both because they feel it is a good tool to further their different ends.

Evolution does exclude the idea of a creator creating each kind separately, the specific idea recorded in the Bible.

Really? First you need to show what a "kind" is before you can make such a claim. Because the Scientific Theory of Evolution has never said anything about a "kind." Are you saying that a "kind" is the same as a species, f.ex.? You need to explain that before you can justify your claim. So far, your claim is meaningless.

Claiming that it doesn't exclude the idea of an ultimate creator is sidestepping the issue.

No, it is a fact. You seem to make false inferences based on your political view, but that has nothing to do with what the SToE actually deals with, which is not the existence or lack thereof of a creator.

So any way you look at it, your claim is false. You just don't WANT it to be false because that robs you of some of your political arguments against science.

PR:That particular point (which I'm not sure has much relevance to this question) does not refute other points, such as the one I mentioned about evolution requiring death before mankind, whereas the Bible teaches that death came as a result of mankind('s sin).

Again, this is most appropriately (IMV) viewed as spiritual death, not physical death. In Genesis, God says that when Adam and Eve eat the 'forbidden fruit', they will die. But, they did not die a physical death when they ate the fruit.

Adam and Eve were supposed to not die at all.

Oh? So God is not all-knowing, didn't predict that "forbidden fruit" would get to them? Because, don't forget that free will didn't occur until afterwards. At that point in time, Adam did not have a choice, neither did Eve. They did not have free will.

The meaning of the Hebrew is that they would begin to die and keep on dying until they were dead.

Could you reference that to a reputable Bible/Torah Scholar, please.

When this passage is referred to by Paul, he is also talking about spiritual death. It seems, based on the intention of the authors and the context, that the best interpretation is that these passages are using physical death as a metaphor for spiritual death.

Not at all. Physical death was clearly not a part of the original creation. Jesus died a physical death to take the punishment man was condemned to. The temporary substitute for sin was the physical death of an animal.

So there was a substitute? Hmm...

In any case, my original reference wasn't just to death, but also to suffering. At the end of the creation week, God pronounced his creation "very good". Do you think that God considers death and suffering "very good"?

We don't know, do we? Your trying to second-guess God is not evidence of anything but your second-guessing.

We are supposed to look forward to a time in the future when there will be no more death, when there will be no more curse. When did the curse and death start? This time in the future is when things are to be restored to the way they were. "Restored" to millions of years of death and suffering?

Correct me if I am wrong, but what we get restored to is God's kingdom, which is not of this world.
....

This may or may not be true, but even if it is, this just supports my main contention. No one (or very few) thought the Bible said anything other than the earth was the center of the universe until after 450 years ago. Why today?

Because we now see things from a different perspective and there is nothing in the Bible to contradict it (the helio-centric view).

Unless you read a few verses literally, like Joshua's long day. Likewise because we now see things from a different perspective, there is nothing in the Bible that contradicts the Scientific theory of Evolution, except for a bit of literal reading by those who haven't gotten with the program and noted the very real evidence that God has let us see. These people are as far off and behind as are the members of the Flat Earth Society, and just as unwilling to look at the actual evidence. And we call these people "creationists."

Answer: Because the overwhelming preponderance of physical evidence shows, in both cases, that the interpretations of geocentrism and a 6000 year old earth are wrong.

Except that it does not show the latter, and the Bible clearly does claim the latter, but not the former.

If you read the Bible literally, it does claim both.
....

Are you saying geologists, astronomers, astrophysicists, etc. are not empirical scientists?

No, as long as they are measuring things that are available to measure, they are empirical scientists. But they don't have the past to measure and test.

So much for Relativity Theory, then. I guess you are saying that Einstein was a quack, then?
.....

The same is true of our study of the interior of stars. Your claim that evolution is not empirical science is simply false. Evolution is based on observable evidence, and the theory makes specific predictions which can be tested. The theory has passed literally thousands, if not millions of such tests to date.

Actually, it has failed many of those tests, but it keeps getting modified to "explain" them.

No, your claim is false. Modification of details is not the failure of the Scientific theory. Please cease misrepresenting the Scientific Method. I am getting the impression that you don't know what it is!

Up to a point that is quite legitimate of course, but it has failed so often that it should have been discarded long ago.

If your claim is true, all science has failed and all of it should have been discarded. I am glad to see that you are consistent and claim that gravity is non-existent, that there are no atoms, no electrons generating electricity etc. That you claim, of course, is completely out of whack with reality merely shows that your position is indefensible, but not that you are inconsistent, because you of course are wrong on ALL claims about the utter and complete failure of all science.

[steen]

Belief in a universe billions rather than thousands of years old is more widespread than belief in evolution.

Science is not about beliefs, but rather about the data.

I know. But the age of the universe is about beliefs.

It is about the data. Other than among the creationists, where it indeed only is about belief regardless of the data

Belief in evolution is more widespread in western countries than in, for example, Muslim countries (and note that I was referring to world-wide population). And belief in evolution is more widespread in academia and the media than in the general population. So you are unlikely to see the age of the earth debated among academia or the media in a western country, but that is not the claim that I was making.

And so on and so on. What people want to believe per their personal/political convictions have little bearing on reality.

My comments that you are replying to were in response to a post by QED that began, "I don't know about atheism, but I think it's very safe to say that believers in a Young Earth are in the minority." So I take it that you are disagreeing with him that believers in a young earth (supposedly) being in a minority is irrelevant?

Nope, I am claiming that belief is irrelevant in the face of facts.

Simply stating that things must be witnessed directly is no excuse for ignoring the wealth of information at our disposal.

I wasn't proposing that, so that is a straw man argument.

Actually, you said that you couldn't get factual data regarding past events.

If any given inference is contested then fine, there is an established mechanism for submitting new interpretations of the data leading to those inferences (and there are no shortage of experts trying to make their mark in their respective fields by revising the conclusions of others).

I have no problem with that, except that creationists are generally excluded from having their ideas considered in a scientific forum.

If they had any new ideas, they would be considered. However, creationists usually haul out the same "evidence" that was used 20-40 years ago and already disproved. Science doesn't deal with hypotheses that have been disproven.

[micatala]

Sorry I have been away so long!

I would agree with Steen that truth is not a popularity contest. It doesn't matter how many people believe or do not
believe in evolution or creationism. It has no bearing on truth or reality.

This applies to Gould et al as well. Even if every single person who believed in evolution was an atheist,
this would in and of itself say NOTHING about whether evolution was 'atheistic.' It also says nothing about whether evolution
is true or not.

Quote:
micatala wrote:
In fact, so would engineering, our criminal justice system, computer science and engineering, etc.
We do not allow 'God did it' explanations in a court of law, for obvious reasons.

Philip Rayment:
Not good examples. The origins of the criminal justice system in many countries can be traced back to the Ten Commandments.

steen:
Nope, your claim is false. It tracks back to Magna Carta, the Roman Law. So you need a better claim there.
because the one you made is false.

I wasn't really commenting about whether the origins of the criminal justices system were Godly or not.
My point was that, when there is a criminal proceeding, we look at physical evidence and testimony,
not supernatural explanations. In general the proceedings consider entirely naturalistic phenomenon and explanations,
other than the motive(s) of the accused. Any lawyer who invoked God as an explanation for the physical evidence
presented at trial would be laughed out of court. Does this mean our courts are atheistic? OF course not.

PR:
In any case, my original reference wasn't just to death, but also to suffering. At the end of the creation week,
God pronounced his creation "very good". Do you think that God considers death and suffering "very good"?

steen:
We don't know, do we? Your trying to second-guess God is not evidence of anything but your second-guessing.

This is a good point. Those of us who believe in God often have the tendency to make assumptions about how God thinks,
or what God's motives might be. Oftentimes, we tend to think God thinks the same way we do.

Would God consider death and suffering "very good?" I think this misses the point.
For one, God does prononounce his creation "very good" but he does not pronounce it "perfect".
It seems to me that even a creation including death and suffering could be very good.
Most days, I consider my life to be very good, but it does not mean I have no suffering.
I know one day I will day, and I have had loved ones who have already died. This does not
mean that my life or theirs were not "very good."

To imply that evolution is un-Godly because it includes the prospect of lots of death and
suffering seems to me to be a pretty subjective objection. Besides which, the Bible includes
a LOT of death and suffering as part of God's plan. Consider the children of Bethlehem
slaughtered by Herod. Consider those drowned in the flood, or put to the sword by the Israelites
invading Canaan. Consider the suffering and martyrdom of the apostles and other early Christians,
not to mention Christ himself. Jesus asks us to take up our crosses and follow him.
He promises us that we will have suffering in this life. Given the clear record of
the Bible and the words of Jesus himself, how can you possibly reach the conclusion that evolution
is un-Godly because it includes death and suffering?

QED wrote:
Philip Rayment clearly has difficulty with the concept of anyone being able to conduct reliable science retrospectively.
This is an unreasonable position to hold because events patently do not have to be witnessed in order to be known about
at a later date. This simple fact can be reasoned-out by anyone who makes an observation that enables them to infer a
particular event. Events leave traces. Air-crash investigators can reconstruct detailed accounts of accidents in the
absence of any witnesses by examining such traces. So can Police, Geologists, Engineers, Palaeontologists, Doctors,
Archeologists, Insurance assessors, Anthropologists etc.


PR:But they are not in the same league as those studying things in the present, where measurements can be taken and
tests repeated. Therefore they have often been known to get it wrong, and that is not to disparage what they do
manage to do.

QED wrote:
Simply stating that things must be witnessed directly is no excuse for ignoring the wealth of information at
our disposal.


PR:I wasn't proposing that, so that is a straw man argument.

But origins is to do with the past, that is outside the realm of empirical science.

Perhaps we need to clarify terms. On the one hand, you are saying evolution and other sciences that study or
make claims about past events are not 'empirical science.' On the other hand, you say you are not proposing
that we ignore the evidence we have from the past. Yes, studying the past is in some ways inherently different
than studying present events or phenomenon we can observe repeatedly in the present. However, this does not, in
and of itself, mean that the our knowledge of the past is always somehow inferior to our knowledge of the present.

Evolution is considered as much an empirical science as any other branch of science, even though its methods and
subject matter are different in important ways from, say particle physics. However, even if we change the common
definition and say evolution is not an 'empirical science', this does not refute the mountains of evidence in
support of evolution. You claim not to be suggesting we ignore evidence from the past. Even just on this forum,
you can find lots of such evidence from the past cited in support of evolution.
If one considers ALL the evidence, and does not deal with it
selectively, it seems to me pretty hard to reject evolution.

Philip Rayment has claimed several times that evolution excludes a priori the idea of a creator, and
therefore is inherently atheistic. It seems the assumption being made is that the only
possible creator is the one envisioned by young earth biblical creationism. Obviously this is not the only possibility
for a creator or for the process of creation. Thus, I again say, evolution does not preclude the existence
of a creator. It does not even preclude a creator along the lines of Genesis, if you make a non-literal
interpretation of the text.

In addition, an additional underlying assumption seems to be that if one does not believe that God is as
described by the YEC
interpretation of Genesis, then one is an atheist. Even if evolution were entirely and completely
inconsistent with Genesis, this would still not make evolution atheistic. Many if us believe in God, and
Jesus as a member of the Godhead, and still accept the fact of evolution. This is not 'sidestepping' the
issue, it is simply refusing to put God into the particular box created for him by a particular interpretation
of scripture.

Also, as has been pointed out, other areas of science are arguably as inconsistent with the literal interpretation
of Genesis as biology. Again, why is only evolution singled out as being atheistic?

micatala wrote:
...just as some people read implications into the Bible that are not necessarily there (eg. black people are
descended from Ham and were inferior due to the 'curse of Ham' and therefore racism is justified).


PR:
"Not necessarily there" is an understatement, given that there is no "curse of Ham". The curse was on his son, Canaan.

You are sidestepping my point. Yes, the curse was on Canaan. I was simply using the terminology 'curse of Ham'
that had been employed by others. In any case, any descendants of Canaan would also be descendants of Ham.

I think the point is still valid. Both with respect to evolution and with respect to the Bible, people read
implications into the theory or the text that are not there. When this occurs, it says NOTHING about the theory
or the text. It says NOTHING about anyone else who accepts the theory or the Bible as the word of God.
If I accused you of being a racist because some Christians believe or believed the Bible promoted racism, you
would probably object, and rightly so. In the same way, I object your characterization of evolution as atheistic,
especially
when part of the argument is based on what others have 'read into' the theory of evolution, including yourself.

micatala wrote:

I have often asked creationists why it is not possible that the literal interpretation of Genesis 1 and 2 is
incorrect, when we know that the literal interprations of Martin Luther, John Calvin, not to mention the
Catholic heirarchy, concerning the immobility of the earth were wrong.

So if someone who believes the Bible to be accurate is wrong on a point, why does that imply that others that
hold the Bible to be accurate can also be wrong? The two questions are not related.

Not related???? What???

Sorry for the question marks, but this seems a bizarre statement.


If expert A testified against a defendent and we later found that the foundation of his testimony was wrong
(eg. the chemical analysis, or DNA methodology, or whatever), would we not question the testimony of expert
B if he or she based their testimony on the same foundation? Both geocentrism and creationism were supported
with arguments from scripture, the same foundation, even if those 'testifying' today are not named Luther,
Calvin, or Bellarmine.

PR:
In this example you have "the foundation of" the testimony being wrong, rather than the testimony itself.
You have not established that this is the case with geocentrism and the Bible. We are agreed that their
testimony was wrong, not the foundation of it (the Bible).

This is a valid point. One can and should make a distinction between the foundation of the testimony and
the testimony itself.

However, this does not refute my point. Whether or not the Bible is 'wrong', we know Luther et al were
demonstrably wrong. One can say that this was because Luther's interpretation was the problem, and that
the Bible is not wrong, that it does not teach geocentrism, etc. but that does not mean that the same
problem could not be occurring today.

In the present circumstance, we have some that testify that evolution is not Biblical and therefore,
on the basis of their literal interpretation, must be wrong . I contend that this testimony is wrong,
whether or not the Bible (or foundation) is wrong. You contend that the ONLY possible testimony that one
could make on the basis of the Bible is six-day creationism. Given the previous circumstance, why should
we accept this testimony, especially when there is so much extra-biblical evidence against it, and a
reasonable interpretation of scripture that is consistent with evolution?

I am not saying that because Luther was wrong, you must also be wrong. I am only saying that using the
Bible to try and trump science has proven to be an unreliable tactic, and so we should be circumspect in
making a similar case in the present circumstance.

Part of the underlying problem, I think, is that there is no way to escape from the 'interpretation problem,'
even if one believes that the Bible is in some sense inerrant. An inerrant Bible does not mean that the
intepretation or understanding of the Bible is inerrant.

[Jose]

Sorry to have been out of touch for a while...

I find this bit interesting:

Evolution does not simply not include consideration of a creator, it specifically excludes the Biblical creator, something that chemistry, etc. doesn't do.

I'd like to know where this viewpoint comes from. I like to think I know a lot about evolution and how it works, and I know of no such exclusion. It would be non-scientific to exclude any potential explanation a priori. All that science does (and yes, I do mean all sciences, not just evolution) is look at the evidence and figure out what mechanisms provide the best explanation. If god chooses not to present evidence that he's been directing things in a particular way, then the science will not point to him directing things. If god were to choose to reveal his actions, then we'd conclude that he's doing something.

The fact that the data point one way, and one way only, is not evidence that scientists are biased against other possibilities.

Remember, evolution was first proposed in a solidly creationist world. It was fought against quite strongly. It became the accepted paradigm only because the evidence is so strong.

[micatala]

Remember, evolution was first proposed in a solidly creationist world. It was fought against quite strongly. It became the accepted paradigm only because the evidence is so strong.

Yes, and this also describes the history of heliocentrism. One difference is that most Christians accepted heliocentrism on the basis of much less evidence than we currently have for evolution.

[Jose]

That's a very good point, micatala. What accounts for the difference?

One idea is that heliocentrism vs geocentrism vs center-of-the-universe-centrism doesn't make a big change in how we see ourselves. Nor does the viewpoint contradict the bible quite so clearly. That is, we can pretend that the flat-earth statements and the sun marching across the firmament are figures of speech. It doesn't come right out and say "the earth stands still, period." (Or does it?)

From what I've pieced together from chatting here, I think the other idea is two-fold. One is that if evolution is true, then genesis isn't, and if genesis isn't true, it's not god's word, so none of the bible is god's word, so there can never again be "morality." Silly idea, but that's how the logic seems to go.

The second half seems to be that if evolution is true, then there really was death before The Fall. Since the creation of death whas the reason for creating salvation, then--so goes the logic--the truth of evolution would mean that there's no such thing as heaven and salvation. I guess, this means the only other choice is hell, or some other sleep of death in which such dreams may come as give us pause.

This would mean that the potential "price" of accepting Copernicus is just a bit of metaphorical thinking, while the potential price of accepting Darwin is too horrible to contemplate.

By contrast, the "price" of not accepting Darwin is a bit of scientific illiteracy, but science is for geeks anyway, and what they hey--that's how they're running the country, so it must be good.

[micatala]

We had some discussion of the issue of their being or not being death before the fall in the Sherlock Holmes and evolution thread.

My impression is that creationists brought up this issue after other basic issues had already been part of the discussion for a time (eg. the bible must be interpreted literally or it will be devalued, etc.). I don't know if this is true or not.

It does seem to suggest, as you say, that the evolution issue is more deeply intertwined into the theological issues than the Copernican. However, I still think focusing on the spiritual message rather than the 'physical' message of the Bible gives a more appropriate interpretation.