Does Evolution Conflict With the Bible?

Creationism, Evolution, and other science issues

Moderator: Moderators

User avatar
Nyril
Scholar
Posts: 431
Joined: Tue Oct 19, 2004 1:21 pm

Does Evolution Conflict With the Bible?

Post #1

Post by Nyril »

I contend that every branch of belief that does not require a young Earth is not entirely incompatible with evolution. If you view the bible/koran/torah as a general life guide, a means through which one can better oneself and serve your deity of choice, without requiring that every word be a literal truth, then there is no apparent conflict that I can see.

I've heard a great deal of people dictate how evolution basically tells god what it can or cannot do, while they themselves impose strict limitations on what they are willing to believe he could do.

Instance 1:

The god you describe often enough does not seem to be one mostly concerned with instant gratification. If I'm wrong on this point, do correct me, but I think all of you can agree at this point that god is willing to wait for good things to occur, and has patience of such that no mortal can compare.

If such a god is an accurate picture of what you believe in, why would it not do something amazing clever like create a single self-replicating polymer in a sea of chemicals and then proceed to watch it blossom and grow until it got us several billion years down the road? Although the holy books get a number of the fine details wrong (we can forgive the translations a bit), it seems to allude that this is entirely what could of happened:
Genesis
1:11 And God said, Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb yielding seed, and the fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind, whose seed is in itself, upon the earth: and it was so.

1:12 And the earth brought forth grass, and herb yielding seed after his kind, and the tree yielding fruit, whose seed was in itself, after his kind: and God saw that it was good.
You can't say for sure what precisely god did when he created the Earth, such details were simply not included in the bible/torah/koran. You can't say he did it one way or another, but I read this to say that god wanted life on the Earth, and it let the Earth take care of the fine points once the process had started.

Instance 2:

Lets step back a bit. We've covered the idea that god may have simply created everything up to the Earth and then stuck some chemicals on it, but why god need to go that far? That seems like a horrifying amount of detail work, something that although not difficult for an all-powerful being, is not consistent with the way we're told the god operates.

You tell me that this god thought of a flood as a good idea when such a being could easily of zapped all the wicked folk off the surface of the Earth, but such a description is useful for our purposes. If god was willing to go to all that effort and wait out all that time to have god's task complete, why not the same with the Universe?

Why create all the stars, galaxy's, and planets, when a simple bing-bang event, carefully created, would yield us in 15 billion years. I've heard that god wouldn't of done it that for a number of nebulous reasons, but that is not consistent with the bible. Lets review.

City into salt, rather then simply vanish the city.
Flooded the Earth, rather then simply vanish the bad folk.
Important prophet/son/etc... to convince the masses on foot, rather then spelling "Worship me fools!" in the stars.
Plagues of Egypt, rather then simply snap the followers out of safety and into paradise.

All the indications your holy books give is that this god is a god that is willing to wait things out a bit, a god that is not concerned with instant gratification, a god which is relatively patient.

Why then, would you tell me that god's greatest work, all of creation, was made in an instant (or something in that vicinity) when god had the option of waiting for his greatest work to come to fruition over the billions of years?

User avatar
aprilannies
Student
Posts: 47
Joined: Thu Dec 30, 2004 12:09 am
Location: Florida

Post #2

Post by aprilannies »

An interesting book on this topic is called God, Time, and Stephen Hawking.

It talks of how scientists can see the beginning of the universe back to less than a second before it began, (this has to do with the speed of light) but what kicked it off initially?

I find that religion and science are very compatible. Then again I think that proponents of young earth are very wrong and that the bible is more allegory than solid fact, so... who knows? :lol:

User avatar
Amphigorey
Student
Posts: 84
Joined: Wed Dec 22, 2004 10:50 am

Post #3

Post by Amphigorey »

Nyril, your conception of God zapping things instantly is more in line with the popular conceptions of the Rapture portrayed in the Left Behind series. Babies being snactched out of wombs, drivers snatched out of cars while driving, etc.
H is for Hector done in by thugs.

User avatar
Nyril
Scholar
Posts: 431
Joined: Tue Oct 19, 2004 1:21 pm

Post #4

Post by Nyril »

Nyril, your conception of God zapping things instantly is more in line with the popular conceptions of the Rapture portrayed in the Left Behind series. Babies being snactched out of wombs, drivers snatched out of cars while driving, etc.
Yes, but the rapture simply starts a far longer process in which people are judged, people are sent to hell, etc... As I recall, the people that remain on the Earth do remain n the Earth for a great amount of time.

The rapture is far from an instant thing.

User avatar
juliod
Guru
Posts: 1882
Joined: Sun Dec 26, 2004 9:04 pm
Location: Washington DC
Been thanked: 1 time

Post #5

Post by juliod »

Why then, would you tell me that god's greatest work, all of creation, was made in an instant (or something in that vicinity) when god had the option of waiting for his greatest work to come to fruition over the billions of years?

Gensis 1 says it was done in 7 days.

The earth was created (mostly) during the 24-hour period known as day 3:

Genesis 1 (NIV):
9 Then God said, "Let the waters below the heavens be gathered into one place, and let the dry land appear"; and it was so.

10 God called the dry land earth, and the gathering of the waters He called seas; and God saw that it was good.

11 Then God said, "Let the earth sprout vegetation, plants yielding seed, and fruit trees on the earth bearing fruit after their kind with seed in them"; and it was so.

12 The earth brought forth vegetation, plants yielding seed after their kind, and trees bearing fruit with seed in them, after their kind; and God saw that it was good.

13 There was evening and there was morning, a third day.


If the authors of the bible had meant a billion years, they could easily have written it that way. They didn't and they didn't.

You can see for yourself that this is all false. One major flaw is that day and night are created on day 1 but the sun is not created until day 4. What the Bronze-Age author did not know is that day and night are created by the rotation of the earth reletive to the sun.

So, yes, evolution (and every other field of science) conflicts with the bible.

DanZ

User avatar
otseng
Savant
Posts: 20832
Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2004 1:16 pm
Location: Atlanta, GA
Has thanked: 213 times
Been thanked: 362 times
Contact:

Re: Does Evolution Conflict With the Bible?

Post #6

Post by otseng »

Nyril wrote:Does Evolution Conflict With the Bible?
Since no differing opinions are being offered, I need to jump in here and offer some thoughts.

First off, it needs to be defined, what do you mean by "evolution"? Biological evolution? Cosmological evolution? Are we talking about microevolution? Macroevolution? Common descent? Abiogenesis? The whole shebang?
If you view the bible/koran/torah as a general life guide, a means through which one can better oneself and serve your deity of choice, without requiring that every word be a literal truth, then there is no apparent conflict that I can see.
Sure, if we limit any holy text to the metaphysics, there is no overlap with the hard sciences.

However, let me state that in all of the evidence I've presented on creationism, I have never used the Bible as primary evidence to support creationism. I believe it is entirely possible to support creationism using facts and evidence outside of the Bible. So, in a sense, the Bible is immaterial in the C vs E debates. Sure, it can be used as secondary evidence, but that is not where the real debate lies. The Bible might serve as the foundation for peoples' beliefs, but in a C vs E debate, it cannot be used as primary evidence for or against any position. It should be the facts and reasoning that speak for themselves.
juliod wrote: So, yes, evolution (and every other field of science) conflicts with the bible.
That is quite an assertion. Every field of science conflicts with the Bible? I dare say that would be quite an impossible statement to prove.

User avatar
juliod
Guru
Posts: 1882
Joined: Sun Dec 26, 2004 9:04 pm
Location: Washington DC
Been thanked: 1 time

Post #7

Post by juliod »

That is quite an assertion. Every field of science conflicts with the Bible? I dare say that would be quite an impossible statement to prove.
Yes, but an easy one to refute. All you need to do is tell us which field of science is fundementally in agreement with creationism.

I used to think that some fields, like electrodynamics, were irrelevant to creationism. But then I got my copy of Rahmat-Samii and Michielson's Electromagnetic Optimizations by Genetic Algorithms.

That book shows how to use computational analogs of evolutionary genetics to "evolve" solutions to equations too complex to analyze by mathematics. Pretty neat!

DanZ

User avatar
Nyril
Scholar
Posts: 431
Joined: Tue Oct 19, 2004 1:21 pm

Post #8

Post by Nyril »

Gensis 1 says it was done in 7 days.
If you would read my post again, I do say that unless the bible must be the literal word-for-word truth, there is no apparent conflict.
First off, it needs to be defined, what do you mean by "evolution"? Biological evolution? Cosmological evolution? Are we talking about microevolution? Macroevolution? Common descent? Abiogenesis? The whole shebang?
Biological, mostly. I don't see my arguments excluding the other forms specifically, but they don't go out of their way to include it.

Regardless, Abiogenesis is not a part of evolution.

User avatar
The Happy Humanist
Site Supporter
Posts: 600
Joined: Tue Dec 21, 2004 4:05 am
Location: Scottsdale, AZ
Contact:

Post #9

Post by The Happy Humanist »

If the authors of the bible had meant a billion years, they could easily have written it that way. They didn't and they didn't.
Well. this might not be quite accurate. I don't think the ancients could have conceptualized a "billion" back then. There weren't billions of dollars, there weren't billions of humans...I sincerely doubt that they would have understood the word "billion" if it came straight from God's mouth.

"And God made the earth in 7 billion years."
"What? Did he say Bill Young?"
"No, I think he said PHIL Young."
"Impossible. That skinny twerp couldn't skin a mastodon, let alone create a whole planet. I think he said 'bouillion'"
"God made the earth in a soup????"
"No, wait, I got it, he said 'BOO-YAH'! That's Chaldean for 'seven days'!"
"Oh, OK, I get it, let's write that down..."

User avatar
otseng
Savant
Posts: 20832
Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2004 1:16 pm
Location: Atlanta, GA
Has thanked: 213 times
Been thanked: 362 times
Contact:

Post #10

Post by otseng »

juliod wrote:
That is quite an assertion. Every field of science conflicts with the Bible? I dare say that would be quite an impossible statement to prove.
Yes, but an easy one to refute. All you need to do is tell us which field of science is fundementally in agreement with creationism.
You made the assertion. All I ask is for you to substantiate your claim. Otherwise, it is just a blanket statement that has no basis to it. Furthermore, your statement was "evolution (and every other field of science) conflicts with the bible. " not "every field of science conflicts with creationism".
Nyril wrote: Abiogenesis is not a part of evolution.
If abiogenesis is indeed left out of evolution, then it would seem like the Bible is even more compatible with evolution since it offers an explanation for the origin of all life, whereas evolution does not.

Post Reply