Bible, evolution NOT perfectly compatible, despite Jesuit apologetics

[Sunstone]

[font=Arial, Helvetica] On the other hand, science cannot pretend to exclude a divine role behind the creation of the world and man, it [the artical] said.

[/font]
Science cannot exclude a divine role, but it sure makes a divine role look unnecessary and superfluous.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

... it sure makes a divine role look unnecessary and superfluous.

Both unnecessary and superfluous?

 

[Sunstone]

Both unnecessary and superfluous?

I'm feelin' quite dramatic this afternoon (too much coffee).

 

[soma]

We may believe or not believe in God, but if we break His divine law we’ll be punished. This is the law of nature because we are all connected so we just can’t do whatever we want. This is not a question of religion, but a question of science. We are all spiritual beings, but because of our materially conditioned minds we are under the laws of nature. We can observe this in evolution, species flourishing, suffering and going extinct. The laws of nature are applicable to everything whether we believe in God or not, it doesn’t matter. We are all under nature’s law because there is only one law controlling us, and we are all under God’s law because there is only one God. It is ignorant to think that we can do anything we like. This lesson is learned in our struggle for material existence. Science observes nature and then makes theories while religion observes the abstract and makes its theories that doesn't mean they are enemies. They both want to find the truth so they can be compatible.

 

[C&N]

Soma,

I disagree with your premise that science and religion are simply describing different phases of the same process, but just in case you are right, explain to me how over 90% of the species to ever inhabit this planet, including dinosaurs such as T-Rex and Brontosaurus have managed to become extinct and become fossils and oil in the last 5,765 years?

Deut. again is dead on.

Either you buy into the bible and beleive the world is 5,765 years old, or you beleive in the VAST amount of physical recordable scientific evidence which indicates that the world is 4.5 billion years old and that life on the planet is where it is by nature of the evolutionary process. Hard to mix and match the two without either changing the Bible story or changing how evolution works.

B.

I don't think that the bible states that the world is 5,765 years old. I know how it talks about it being created in 7 days but what is a day to an infinite being?

 

[C&N]

Awww I wasn't finished...

But yea you were saying about how the 90% of species became extinct in the 5000 something years, and ya I was just trying to say that the bible wasnt literally saying 7 days when it said so. I don't know enough about the bible to talk about that mix and match stuff, but I do know that the genesis timeframe wasnt literal. Those who take it literally, well good luck on that.

Ohhh, I do know that the bible says that sea creatures and stuff were b4 the land creatures, does that count for anything?

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Awww I wasn't finished...

Unfortunate ...

Ohhh, I do know that the bible says that sea creatures and stuff were b4 the land creatures, does that count for anything?

And fowl?

 

[MdmSzdWhtGuy]

I don't think that the bible states that the world is 5,765 years old. I know how it talks about it being created in 7 days but what is a day to an infinite being?

Literal translation of the bible puts the Earth being 5765 years old today. Ask any Orthodox Jew what year this is, and he will tell you 5,765, cause that is what year we are in on the Jewish Calendar, which dates from Adam.

And the bible is either to be taken literally or it is not. It is funny to me how people like to pick and choose the parts of it to be taken literally. There was a time in the not to distant past when every word of the bible was literally the inspired word of God and there is nothing more true in the world than the Bible. Then science comes along and proves that they earth is 4.5 billion years old. Oops.

Well a day to God could be millions and billions of years. He is all knowing and all powerful don't ya know. But the rest of the bible is literally true. Then a geologist comes along and notes that there is not only no evidence of a worldwide flood during the time of Noah, that there is in fact not enough water on Earth to produce such a flood, and if the water did rise that high, the air pressure would suffocate all survivors, and besides all that, it is impossible to build a wooden boat big enough for all the animals, and a bazillion other problems with that story. . . oh, ok, that story is just a parable to then right?

But all the rest of it is literally true, taken down from on high. But the Tower of Babel reaching into the air so high God was afraid they might get to heaven? Humans have in this century travelled beyond the atmosphere of the earth and have even walked on the moon, God didn't stop that. Oh, this one is a parable too, huh? But all the rest of it. . . .

This could go on and on. Either you beleive the bible literally and overlook all the evidence which shows it cannot be taken literally by a rational thinker. Or you don't.

B.

 

[Quiddity]

It is funny to me how people like to pick and choose the parts of it to be taken literally.

Why is this funny? It is truth/teachings that we seek. Oral Tradition has always been a lens through which we used to determine the exegetical method. We didn't need science to be in trouble.

~Victor

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Literal translation of the bible puts the Earth being 5765 years old today.

Actually, it's the 21st of Cheshvan, 5766.

 

[MdmSzdWhtGuy]

Actually, it's the 21st of Cheshvan, 5766.

Right you are sir. How did I know it would be you who got it?

B.

 

[Orthodox]

Well, this seems to be quite an interesting thread. Evolution and the Bible, Science and religion, what a volatile mix! While I disagree that the literal interpretation of Genesis says the universe is ~6k years old (I can tell you why I think so if you'd like, I find the whole subject rather dull though so I won't if I don't have to ) I would like to make a point against what Duet originally said in the first post of this thread concening science and how it is defined. Duet wrote that,

Science excludes untestable speculation: there is no demonstrable "divine role behind the creation of the world and man"

Do you really believe this? Is demonstratability the criteria which must be fulfilled in order for a theory to be scientifically plausible? If so, how is evolution "demonstrable"? Evolution can be inferred from fossils, it has never been demonstrated though. Evolution is built upon postulation about past singularities, not repeatable, testable, observations.

I challenge you Duet (in a friendly way ) to formulate a rational definition of science which forbids speculation about divine agencies and causes while allowing for the theory of evolution. Knockout

cheers

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Science excludes untestable speculation: there is no demonstrable "divine role behind the creation of the world and man"

I challenge you Duet (in a friendly way) to formulate a rational definition of science which forbids speculation about divine agencies and causes while allowing for the theory of evolution.

But I never said that science forbids speculation. In fact, it could be argued that speculation is at the heart of scientific discovery. What science excludes is speculative explanatons which are not ammenable to intersubjectively verifiable testing. So, for example, we read ...

In contrasting the Western religions with science, the most important criterion of distinction is that the supernatural or spiritual realm is unknowable ... Given this fiat by the theistic believers, science simply ignores the supernatural as being outside the scope of scientific inquiry. Scientists in effect are saying:

You religious believers set up your postulates as truths, and we take you at your word. By definition, you render your beliefs unassailable and unavailable.​

This attitude is not one of surrender, but simply an expression of the logical impossibility of proving the existence of something about which nothing can possibly be known through scientific investigation.

- Understanding Science: An Introduction to Concepts and Issues by Arthur N. Strahler

It is not at all uncommon that such intersubjectively verifiable testing be limited to testing predicted results. I would suggest, for example, that the stratification of fossil remains serves as strong circumstantial evidence for descent with modification, evidence which is confirmed and strengthened by genomics. What similarly testable predictions can be deduced from "God did it"?

 

[jonny]

Well I agree with Deut. either you believe in evolution or you believe in creation ( I mean in the Bible), you cannot make them both work, because the Bible says by Adam sin passed to all men in Romans 5. Either accept the Bible or accept evolution, but don't contradict either one, it doesnt work.

I started a thread with a article on how they could both work together and didn't get a single response (expect from Katzpur hoping people would read it). It is possible to for some to accept the bible and evolution.

 

[Nick Soapdish]

This is absolute nonsense:

• The only way to make the bible and evolution compatible is to bastardize evolution.

Perhaps Deut, the problem is you have no peripheral vision.

 

[mormonman]

There is no gray area of evolution vs. religion. You are either for it or against it. If God says that He created the Earth in 6 days i'm perfectly fine w/ it. I was reading a book by Joseph F. Smith "Docterines of Salvation" that said exalctly this. Well, I would love to go on about this, but I have AP History homework to do. I'll tell you more about this tomorrow.

 

[JerryL]

If God says that He created the Earth in 6 days i'm perfectly fine w/ it.

Are you fine with the same book claiming that the sun stood still? Because a non-moving sun would mean that the Earth (which is not said to have been made still) flew off and we don't orbit it.

Of course, this is one of the verses that was often used to prove that the Sun moved around the Earth; much as you are trying to use Genesis to prove creationism. Are you a geocentracist?

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Perhaps Deut, the problem is you have no peripheral vision.

Perhaps Deut, the problem is you have no peripheral vision.

Perhaps, atofel, the problem is your tendency toward inane observations.

 

[mormonman]

Are you fine with the same book claiming that the sun stood still? Because a non-moving sun would mean that the Earth (which is not said to have been made still) flew off and we don't orbit it.

Of course, this is one of the verses that was often used to prove that the Sun moved around the Earth; much as you are trying to use Genesis to prove creationism. Are you a geocentracist?

If Genesis said that the sun stood still I'm fine w/ it. So you're saying that God isn't all powerful? If He wants to have the sun stand still, He can do it. I don't know the scripture reference you're talking about, so if you can tell me I can give you a definite answer.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

If Genesis said that the sun stood still I'm fine w/ it. So you're saying that God isn't all powerful? If He wants to have the sun stand still, He can do it. I don't know the scripture reference you're talking about, so if you can tell me I can give you a definite answer.

Joshua 10.12-15 (KJV - cause I know LDS perfer it)

12Then spake Joshua to the LORD in the day when the LORD delivered up the Amorites before the children of Israel, and he said in the sight of Israel, Sun, stand thou still upon Gibeon; and thou, Moon, in the valley of Ajalon.


13And the sun stood still, and the moon stayed, until the people had avenged themselves upon their enemies. Is not this written in the book of Jasher? So the sun stood still in the midst of heaven, and hasted not to go down about a whole day.

14And there was no day like that before it or after it, that the LORD hearkened unto the voice of a man: for the LORD fought for Israel. 15And Joshua returned, and all Israel with him, unto the camp to Gilgal.