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]

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?

No, the Hebrew word for "made" can indicate that the sun wasn't completed until the 4th day. Well, this is true from a scientific view because the it was a much cooler sun than what we see today. This is called the faint young sun paradox.

(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..... )

Tthe sequence is mentioned, so that's not a good suggestion, I think.

[Curious]

...even before Adam had sinned, God foresaw that he would sin. The original sin was prior to the creation of the world in the same way that the slaining of the Lamb was prior to the creation of the world.

If Adam had free will then how come he wasn't allowed to partake of the tree of knowledge. Before knowledge of good and evil how would Adam know that to disobey God was wrong. If Adam had not eaten the fruit, would the slaying of Abel by Cain have been acceptable behaviour? Does anybody seriously believe that a God who is willing to forgive all kinds of despicable behaviour would punish mankind so harshly for one tiny indiscretion.

[Curious]

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.

Earth days are 24 hours long due to the speed of rotation and the fact that there is a sun. How could the days before the creation of the sun (in genesis) be considered to mean 24 hours. Isn't it obvious that at least these days do not refer to single 24 hour periods? in anycase, why 24 hours, in the poles the days last 12 months,or in biblical terms 6 months of day and 6 months of night.

[Curious]

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.

The problem with this interpretation is that in Genesis there is a distinction between day and night. The light is day and the dark is night. To state that the day contains a period of dark or starts in the dark cannot therefore be logical. Since there is no sun to be obscured by the earths rotation a day should be considered to last for as long as the light shines.

[sin_is_fun]

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.

So plants came into existence before sun was 'completed'?

[harvey1]

So plants came into existence before sun was 'completed'?

The Hebrew word ("Deshe'") for "grass" means any kind of simple life. So, all that needed to come to exist is life, which is probably accurate since the sun probably wasn't near its current brightness until well after the existence of life.

Of course, I'm not trying to say that this is what the author intended. I'm just saying that the Hebrew words available to them at the peak of their civilization was only around 8600 words. If you consider that the number of English words is around 200,000 words in common usage, it's very well possible that had that civilization been able to describe the evolutionary history of our planet, Genesis 1 would not look all that different from the way it was written. They would still use Desche' to describe primitive life; and, had they known the sun wasn't finished until after this primitive life started, they probably would have put the sun's creation after life, etc..

[Curious]

The Hebrew word ("Deshe'") for "grass" means any kind of simple life. So, all that needed to come to exist is life, which is probably accurate since the sun probably wasn't near its current brightness until well after the existence of life.

But Genesis 1 states:

14 And God said: 'Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days and years; 15 and let them be for lights in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth.' And it was so. 16 And God made the two great lights: the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night; and the stars. 17 And God set them in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth, 18 and to rule over the day and over the night, and to divide the light from the darkness; and God saw that it was good. 19 And there was evening and there was morning, a fourth day.

This is pretty clear. Genesis states that the sun was made and set in the firmament on the same day that it issued it's light.

Of course, I'm not trying to say that this is what the author intended. I'm just saying that the Hebrew words available to them at the peak of their civilization was only around 8600 words. If you consider that the number of English words is around 200,000 words in common usage, it's very well possible that had that civilization been able to describe the evolutionary history of our planet, Genesis 1 would not look all that different from the way it was written. They would still use Desche' to describe primitive life, had they known the sun wasn't finished until after this primitive life started they probably would have put the sun's creation after life, etc..

I would suggest that 8600 words is more than ample to describe whether something happened before,during or after an event. And in Genesis it states quite clearly that the sun's creation IS placed AFTER the alleged creation of primitive (and not so primitive eg. fruit trees) life. Thankfully, I have yet to meet a person who uses 200000 words in their vocabulary. I often find that the greater the vocabulary, the less understandable the ideas the language attempts to convey becomes.

[sin_is_fun]

The Hebrew word ("Deshe'") for "grass" means any kind of simple life. So, all that needed to come to exist is life, which is probably accurate since the sun probably wasn't near its current brightness until well after the existence of life.

where does Genesis talk about brightness of sun?What about creation of other stars and moon on 4th day?Did all stars and sun and moon peak in brightness exactly on the 4th day?Genesis says animals,plants everything was created in 4th day.Animals and first life had millions of years of gap between them.How do you tie up all these events in one day?

Of course, I'm not trying to say that this is what the author intended. I'm just saying that the Hebrew words available to them at the peak of their civilization was only around 8600 words. If you consider that the number of English words is around 200,000 words in common usage, it's very well possible that had that civilization been able to describe the evolutionary history of our planet, Genesis 1 would not look all that different from the way it was written. They would still use Desche' to describe primitive life; and, had they known the sun wasn't finished until after this primitive life started, they probably would have put the sun's creation after life, etc..

Does Genesis talk about 'evolutionary history' of man? sun 'wasnt finished' until man was created? hmm....

Ok..if evolution is accepted in that way I am happy.

[harvey1]

where does Genesis talk about brightness of sun?

It doesn't, but the Hebrew word for "made" is very vague in that language. It could mean the completion date, it could also mean the beginning date. If completion date, for the sun it could mean after the sun is a billion years old.

What about creation of other stars

It doesn't say the stars were created on the 4th day.

and moon on 4th day?

Well, surprisingly the moon probably was created after the origin of life evolved on earth, or at least, it's a very real possibility.

Genesis says animals,plants everything was created in 4th day.

Plants were on the 3rd day, sun and moon were 4th day, and fish and flying things were 5th day, and animals and humans were 6th day.

Animals and first life had millions of years of gap between them.How do you tie up all these events in one day?

If the day represents a momentous occasion (e.g., the origin of life), and then it would not matter how many hundreds of millions of years followed that process, the Hebrew could just make due with the notion that the day signified either the beginning of the process or the end of the process. I have examples from the Hebrew text where the words were used for both scenarios.

Does Genesis talk about 'evolutionary history' of man? sun 'wasnt finished' until man was created?

Yes, Genesis says so. In verses 11 and 24 God commands the earth to bring forth life. It was a commandment to the earth to bring forth using an earthly process. However, Gen.2:4 can only be interpreted as evolution:

This is the generations of the heavens and the earth when they were created

The word for generations means gradual change over many successive time periods. The modern word equivalent would be evolution. As for the sun, it was completed on day 3 (i.e., before sea life), so its time period would have to be prior to multicellular llife, or more than 1 billion years ago. Of course, the sun was already 3.5 billion years old, so the sun and moon were already complete. (Again, I'm just speaking from the point of view that one could conceivably interpret Genesis along these lines.)

Ok..if evolution is accepted in that way I am happy.

Unfortunately few fundamentalists will adapt to this way of thinking, however I think it shows that fundamentalists aren't against evolution because of any biblical reason, it seems to be a conflict having to do with some rooted tradition of animosity. Evolutionary theory should be taught with this awareness rather than under the assumption that the theory is necessarily in conflict with biblical beliefs.

[micatala]

micatala wrote:

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.

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.

It seems we are in agreement on a number of things. Yes, when we talk about 'spiritual creation' we are no longer talking science.

Yes, I accept evolution as the best and most likely explanation of how life developed on earth. It should be taught as part of science.

My main contention all along has only been that you cannot conclude that evolution in all its details is true simply because creationism is false.

I also am still contesting the question regarding what major denominations believe about physical vs spiritual death. When I have time, I'll see if I can find some information on some specific denominations.

Reading the last few posts, I think Harvey makes some very good points and thank him for his scholarship on the original Hebrew. It seems there is ample ambiguity in the language, so much so that we may never be able to say 'THIS IS EXACTLY WHAT THE ORIGINAL AUTHORS MEANT.' As has been pointed out (McCUlloch I think) this brings us into the realm of speculation. My own view is that it is fine to speculate, as long as one understands that that is what one is doing. We can then debate our various 'speculations' to see which is most internally consistent and logical, as well as consistent with extra-biblical evidence. WE have a LOT more such evidence than was available to the Hebrews, as well as a whole different world-view. However, I think it is not inconsistent with what is written in Genesis to suggest that the author of Genesis knew very well that his account was not completely factual, but only his best rendering based on his inspiration and knowledge.