"Origin of the Species" is Theistic

[ecco]

Science has not debunked the Book of Genesis!

Science is quite clear in its denunciation of a worldwide flood.
Science is quite clear in its denunciation of Adam & Eve being the ancestor of all humans.

So, yes, Science has debunked the Book of Genesis!

 

[Bear Wild]

No dishonesty here.
Did you go read the whole pamphlet from the NAS? Have you?
If you have - you better read it again!

What's a common trait with evolutionists is that so many of them don't understand what they read!


Read the whole pamphlet. I urge you!
The only beef that the NAS has with Creationism (referring to literal creation narrative from the Book of Genesis, and Intelligent Design), is that they are not scientific, and therefore they shouldn't be taught in SCIENCE classrooms!

Science has not debunked the Book of Genesis!
According to the NAS, the literal creation narrative does not belong in a SCIENCE class! Do you understand why?


The consensus doesn't matter.

I quoted you the views of the NAS (taken from the FAQ section of NASA) - that's the official stance of the National Academy of Sciences.

It speaks as an organization - it speaks for all its members!

And it did single out, Theistic Evolution.

Lol. That it's even posted in the FAQ section means, it's for the public to understand! It is written in layman's terms.

I down loaded the document and read it clearly which you clearly did not. Your quote that you provided was not representative of the publication. The document does state that science cannot study creationism and cannot affirm or deny anybody's belief in a creation myth which ever creation myth that is. No one is questioning whether science can or cannot prove Genesis. Actually they do not take any stance on genesis other than it should not be taught in schools and has nothing to do with science. Myths cannot be proven or disproven with science. Your quote out of context with what followed gave an incorrect view of the publication. If you had said that the National Acadamy of Science takes no stance on genesis because it is not in the realm of science and that it does take the stance that evolution is correct as supported by science then no one would disagree . But you fragment presented suggested something else.
The official stance of the National Academy of Sciences is that evolution is supported by science and gave extensive evidence for it.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

And many theologians, such as Maimonides (the RAMBAM), felt that in the first dozen or so chapters in Genesis is where a substantial use of allegories are used. Many such theologians believe that it is likely that the Creation narratives in Genesis are a reworking of a much older Babylonian epic, the latter of which is polytheistic, so as to show where that is wrong and that all was created by the One God, thus reflecting Jewish beliefs.

And I would agree with him.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

Science is quite clear in its denunciation of a worldwide flood.
Science is quite clear in its denunciation of Adam & Eve being the ancestor of all humans.

So, yes, Science has debunked the Book of Genesis!

You say that only because you think Genesis 1-3 claims to be completely historical. You sadly have no appreciation for the extreme value of Myth.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

Critical? They do? Like what?
Anything about human nature that is not
stone obvious?
As for god, teaching about a non existent
psycho monster does not seem so good.

Some people believe that we are basically good. Genesis 2-3 teaches us that we have a flaw in our nature. We Jews say that we have a Yetzer HaTov, an inclination for good (which comes from being created in the image of God) and a Yetzer HaRa, an inclination for evil. Of course different Jews take Genesis as literal, allegorical, or figuratively depending on whom you ask. Here is my take.

There was a time in our evolution when we were still morally unconscious. By that I mean we may still have had rudimentary senses of justice and empathy, such as chimps have today. But that self reflection that comes where we know something is wrong because we can put ourselves in another's shoes, and the feelings of guilt that comes when we do it anyways was simply not evolved yet.

In this state we were as very, very young children, not really morally responsible for the things we did. Indeed, more akin to the other animals. Can we blame a cat for playing with its prey? It is functioning on its instincts alone. And so we were blissfully unaware, without the angst of conscience. We were still 100% part of nature. We were in harmony with ourselves, with nature, and with God.

There had to have been a first occasion, and a first person, when this happened. And it was adaptive. Biologically it spread. But there was a cost. It created a cataclysmic chasm between our instincts and our conscience. Forever on since that moment there would be occasions when our conscience and our instincts would be at odds. To start with, this meant that we would no longer be in harmony with ourselves. It also meant that we were no longer 100% in harmony with nature. It meant that we were not in harmony with others. And of course, it meant we were no longer in harmony with God.

You might say that this moment where we came into moral sentience could figuratively be called the moment when we "ate of the tree of the knowledge of Good and Evil." And this movement into a state of disharmony would be what Christians call "The Fall." Certainly, the fact that our instincts NOW cause problems for our higher level conscience means that our instincts are a lower level "Yetzer HaRa."

Unlike Christianity, Judaism teaches that God has given mankind a healthy balance of Yetzer HaRa and Yetzer HaTov. The idea is not to get rid of Yetzer HaRa, but to subjugate it through sanctifying it--use our instincts in the right way, the right time, with the right person, for the right reason, in the right place, the right way, etc. For example, we have an instinct to procreate -- do so within the committed stable relationship of a marriage between a man and a woman.

Indeed, the world would be a terrible place if our Yetzer HaRa were to disappear. We are talking about really basic instincts such as sex, acquisition, competition, and anger. If we stop to think about it, although these can lead to some pretty ugly stuff, they are also the building blocks of basic society -- procreation, business, government... So the ideal becomes taming the instincts with one's conscience rather than eradicating it.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

Lied - no. Conceded to outside pressure for his work to be accepted yes. It was not in the first printing which was how he wrote the book. It got added most likely to appease his wife and allow the idea to take hold. His arguments against Alfred Wallace's stance of spiritual involvement supports this.

I'm sorry but I really need to nail you down on this.

What exactly do you mean by "conceded to outside pressure?" That statement means you are doing something you don't want to do. Usually when you SAY something you don't want to say, it is either because you don't believe it, or because you believe that by saying it you will do yourself or someone else harm. So why do you think Darwin didn't want to say that remark (according to you)??

 

[IndigoChild5559]

Actually - No.

myth
/miTH/
noun

1. 1.
   a traditional story, especially one concerning the early history of a people or explaining some natural or social phenomenon, and typically involving supernatural beings or events.
   synonyms: folk tale, story, folk story, legend, tale, fable, saga, allegory, parable, tradition, lore, folklore; More
2. 2.
   a widely held but false belief or idea.
   "he wants to dispel the myth that sea kayaking is too risky or too strenuous"
   synonyms: misconception, fallacy, mistaken belief, false notion, misbelief, old wives' tale, fairy story, fairy tale, fiction, fantasy, delusion, figment of the imagination; More

I am using definition #1. However, I am going far, FAR past the mere definition. I am using the working literary understanding of what myth is.

I suggest you read JRR Tolkien's "On Fairy Stories." http://brainstorm-services.com/wcu-2005/pdf/fairystories-tolkien.pdf

It's an essay, although a bit long for an essay. I do believe you have the requisite intelligence to understand it, although I'm not sure if you have the patience. Give it a try. It is perhaps THE essay to read on the importance of myth and fairy stories. If you can read this AND understand it, it will indeed change your entire point of view on the subject.

It is far too nuanced for me to summarize for you, except to say that these stories draw from the racial memories (archetypes) in our minds in order to bypass the filters of our biases. Thus the values and important truths transmitted by myths seep through to our unconscious minds, influencing us without us being aware.

 

[SkepticThinker]

No, it's not Biblical. I don't believe in theistic evolution - just to get that on record.
But I'm responding to the line of thought that's conveyed in the OP.

Anyway, the Bible is not meant to be a science book.....HOWEVER, modern science happens to confirm some Biblical passages. As an example, who would've thought the "stretching heavens" isn't just a figure of speech - that, it can be taken literally!

Science was created for a reason, and I believe it was created for the glorification of God.

Taken literally as .... ??

 

[SkepticThinker]

Believe it or not, faith in Christianity is based on critical thinking.

How can it not be? When it's repeatedly written in the Scriptures that we are supposed to discern?

Can anything be believed on faith?

 

[SkepticThinker]

Hey....science isn't the only way we can arrive at a truth and certain realities!
Science is quite limited! It can't handle something it can't observe and analyze.
Don't take my word for it.
Here - straight from the NATIONAL ACADEMY OF SCIENCES!


WMAP Site FAQs

See? Religious experience, is cited.

Why should we believe in things we cannot observe, analyze, measure or demonstrate?

 

[tosca1]

Taken literally as .... ??

As the............ stretching universe?

Heavens, is defined as the expanse of space that seems to be over the earth like a dome (Merriam).

I suppose the biblical verses were given from the perspective of a person gazing up the sky.

 

[Bear Wild]

I'm sorry but I really need to nail you down on this.

What exactly do you mean by "conceded to outside pressure?" That statement means you are doing something you don't want to do. Usually when you SAY something you don't want to say, it is either because you don't believe it, or because you believe that by saying it you will do yourself or someone else harm. So why do you think Darwin didn't want to say that remark (according to you)??

It was not according to me by to his own notes as a materialist and his arguments with Wallace to remove a spiritual force from Wallace's view on evolutions. However his religious viewpoint may have been much more ambiguous than I had originally thought.
Quotes like - , "O, you materialist!' and says, 'Why is thought, being a secretion of brain, more wonderful than gravity as a property of matter?"
and - "to avoid saying how far I believe in materialism, say only that emotions, instincts, degrees of talent which are hereditary are so because brain of child resembles parent stock." Suggest his materialistic view however in a letter to the Botanist Asa Gray we have a different view

"I had no intention to write atheistically….I can see no reason, why a man, or other animal, may not have been aboriginally produced by other laws; & that all these laws may have been expressly designed by an omniscient Creator, who foresaw every future event & consequence. But the more I think the more bewildered I become"

His religious view clearly changed with age after starting out to be a part of the clergy to his at least agnostic like views of his later life and his belief in a creator much to ambiguous to draw clear conclusions. Clearly he did not place the concept of a creator as an important aspect leaving it to the second to last single sentence and objected to Wallace's stance. Unfortunately he is not here to answer the question. His viewpoint on human behavior was clearly connected with other animal behavior without the separation that Wallace proclaimed as seen in his latter book.

 

[Polymath257]

I am using definition #1. However, I am going far, FAR past the mere definition. I am using the working literary understanding of what myth is.

I suggest you read JRR Tolkien's "On Fairy Stories." http://brainstorm-services.com/wcu-2005/pdf/fairystories-tolkien.pdf

It's an essay, although a bit long for an essay. I do believe you have the requisite intelligence to understand it, although I'm not sure if you have the patience. Give it a try. It is perhaps THE essay to read on the importance of myth and fairy stories. If you can read this AND understand it, it will indeed change your entire point of view on the subject.

It is far too nuanced for me to summarize for you, except to say that these stories draw from the racial memories (archetypes) in our minds in order to bypass the filters of our biases. Thus the values and important truths transmitted by myths seep through to our unconscious minds, influencing us without us being aware.

It seems to me that this essay is simply expressing the value of literature to humans. It looks at one particular type of literature: the fairy story, but the conclusions are more general.

But the point is that they are *fiction*. And there is a difference between fiction and fact. Myth and fairy stories are decidedly on the side of fiction. You create a (false) world, and explore it. As Tolkien notes, it is often for escape, a useful and valuable thing.

The problem, in my mind, is when the myths are taken as factual. When the stories are taken as describing reality. That is a confusion that is dangerous, especially with the great myths associated with religions.

But myths themselves can serve to express our hopes and desires, our fears and our frustrations, our dreams and our goals. As such, they are valuable. Just don't take them as reality.

In any case, that's how I see it.

 

[SkepticThinker]

As the............ stretching universe?

Heavens, is defined as the expanse of space that seems to be over the earth like a dome (Merriam).

And you think this accurately describes the expansion of the universe?

I suppose the biblical verses were given from the perspective of a person gazing up the sky.

I'm sure they were, given that they were written by human beings.

 

[tosca1]

And you think this accurately describes the expansion of the universe?



I'm sure they were, given that they were written by human beings.

I'm not forcing you to accept what I say. Believe what you want.

 

[SkepticThinker]

I'm not forcing you to accept what I say. Believe what you want.

I didn't suggest you were. I actually asked a question.

 

[ecco]

No one is questioning whether science can or cannot prove Genesis. Actually they do not take any stance on genesis

Science has found that a worldwide flood never took place within the past 6000 years. Science took a stand on Genesis.

 

[ecco]

You say that only because you think Genesis 1-3 claims to be completely historical. You sadly have no appreciation for the extreme value of Myth.

I certainly do not think Genesis 1-3 is completely historical. For you to imply that, is absolutely ridiculous.

I also understand that many people, today, recognize Genesis as allegory.

However, believers in Genesis do not feel that way...

‘If Christians don’t believe in a literal Genesis, they have no foundation for their doctrine’ | The Christian Chronicle
‘If Christians don’t believe in a literal Genesis, they have no foundation for their doctrine’
Creationist Ken Ham discusses his belief in a 6,000-year-old Earth, what might have happened if Noah ‘had swatted those two mosquitoes’ and why he views the Bible’s opening 11 chapters as so important.​

It is these beliefs that science has refuted.

 

[ecco]

To ecco:

You sadly have no appreciation for the extreme value of Myth.

To Audie:

Genesis 2-3 teaches us that we have a flaw in our nature.

So you don't take Genesis literally. You presume it is all allegorical. You presume it is all written just that way for people like you to interpret and learn.

You have no basis to make such a presumption. You cannot show anywhere in Christian or Jewish scripture any authority to take Genesis as anything other than literal fact.

Perhaps you can give an example of something in scripture that you do not see as myth or allegory - something that is absolute truth. Then you can explain why Genesis is myth and why your choice is factual truth.

 

[ecco]

I am using definition #1. However, I am going far, FAR past the mere definition. I am using the working literary understanding of what myth is.

I suggest you read JRR Tolkien's "On Fairy Stories." http://brainstorm-services.com/wcu-2005/pdf/fairystories-tolkien.pdf

It's an essay, although a bit long for an essay. I do believe you have the requisite intelligence to understand it, although I'm not sure if you have the patience. Give it a try. It is perhaps THE essay to read on the importance of myth and fairy stories. If you can read this AND understand it, it will indeed change your entire point of view on the subject.


The Genesis myths teach us critical things about human nature, and the nature of God. But they were never intended to be historical narratives, much less anything like modern science.

I don't need to read Tolkien or IndigoChild to understand what myths are. I have known that for many years.
I don't need to read Tolkien or IndigoChild to understand that myths have had a major influence on mankind throughout our existence. I have known that for many years.

However, it is precisely because of that knowledge, that I disagree with your assertion...

The Genesis myths ... were never intended to be historical narratives, much less anything like modern science.

All of the Biblical stories, OT and NT, were written to be understood as facts, not Just So stories. Just So stories have meaning behind them that may or may not be accepted. Factual tales of what actually happened with Man and GOD's reaction thereto, are powerful and are not to be ignored. That is the purpose of God-Belief and Religion.

Consider...

1. Village Elder/WiseMan (teaching about morals): There was a city that had many whorehouses and that led to many people getting sick. It was so bad, that the city eventually died out.
2. Village Elder/WiseMan (teaching about morals): Then the LORD rained upon Sodom and upon Gomorrah brimstone and fire from the LORD out of heaven; And he overthrew those cities, and all the plain, and all the inhabitants of the cities, and that which grew upon the ground.

Both are morality tales. Both are told as something that actually happened. Which is more powerful?

Religious myths were also intended to "factually" explain things that man was ignorant of at the time:

The origin of Lightning; God
The cause of pestilence; God
Why volcanoes erupt; God

When man taught man that pestilence was caused by an angry/disappointed God, they didn't write that as allegory, they wrote it as something to be factually believed. When they wrote that "offerings" had to be made to the god(s), they didn't write that as allegory, they wrote it as something to be factually believed.

Thus the values and important truths transmitted by myths seep through to our unconscious minds, influencing us without us being aware.

People were consciously aware of the fact that sacrifices needed to be made to appease god(s). Perhaps the only thing seeping into our subconscious minds was the actual existence of and the need for god(s).