Settling the evolution/Genesis problem once and for all.

[The Ardent Atheist]

Hi.

As an atheist, I couldn't care less about attempts at reconciling science and religion. In fact, it's in my interest to highlight the many, many scientific blunders in the Bible.

But I'm also an honest guy. I like truth. And the truth about the creation stories in Genesis is that the authors hadn't intended the text to be taken as history.

To quote Rationalwiki:

...The creation of the sun, moon, and stars on day four is meant to be a theological point, rather than a scientific one. As other cultures worshiped the sun and moon and divined by the stars (astrology), the Hebrew authors are making the point that none of them is the source of the light, but rather merely reflectors of the light (as lamps) whose ultimate origin is in their God. The creation myth also uses poetic parallelism to narrate the story: Day 1 and Day 4 are paired (light; sun, moon, stars), Day 2 and Day 5 (seas and dry land; fish and fowl), Day 3 and Day 6 (plants of the earth; beasts of the earth and humanity). Furthermore, given the similarity of this narrative to the creation myth of the Babylonians, whose god Marduk creates the cosmos by slaying his sea-serpent mother Tiamat, the Hebrew presentation of God creating over the deep (Hebrew: "tehom") by means other than violence and declaring the creation to be "good" is a rebuke to the Babylonian myth.

The abundance of literary and theological devices in the narrative makes it clear that the text is not attempting to be a scientific account of the origin of the world, but a theological declaration of the goodness of the creation as against competing religious systems (Canaanite, Babylonian, etc.).

This is a mainstream, scholarly understanding of the Genesis stories, and it's a view taken by many smart Christians as well, such as the previous pope in his book "A Catholic Understanding of the Creation and the Fall."

What do the YEC folks have to say about this?

 

[Deidre]

I view Genesis as mainly, an allegory.I don't think we can say with certainty what the 'authors' had in mind, because fundamentalist Christians take Genesis as literal, and that could very well mean that they view Genesis as both a science and historical text.

 

[Sunstone]

I'm so glad you've settled the controversy once and for all. I can quit drinking myself to sleep now.

 

[Deidre]

I'm so glad you've settled the controversy once and for all. I can quit drinking myself to sleep now.

aren't you glad you came back to RF?

 

[ak.yonathan]

What if science one day proved the existence of God?

 

[Laika]

This is the internet.

Reasoned argument won't save you here!

As an atheist, I couldn't care less about attempts at reconciling science and religion.

you should look into it. The evidence for the conflict thesis between science and religion is highly selective at best because it's based almost exclusively on Galileo and Darwin whilst ignoring a much larger history of overlap between science, religion and philosophy. Views that science and religion have a complex but ultimately compatible historical relationship have a stronger evidence base. you've still got "old earth creationists" whose views are more compatible with science and reason. It's also worth considering Deism and Natural Theology as examples of evidence based argument for god and creation.

This obviously doesn't help Young Earth Creationists, but in an effort to provide something productive, this is why simply demonstrating genesis is a myth or a fairy tale in the mind of it's original authors only eliminates "revelation" as a source of argument for design. It barely scratches the surface of religious traditions as living faiths of their adherents or deeper philosophical problems about what science can and cannot prove, rather than something taken literally straight out of a book. you can be as certain that you are right as you like, but in itself that won't be enough to change people's mind; people's beliefs are highly complex products of their personal experiences, knowledge and social interactions and therefore don't change in the course of a single thread. sustained and productive discussion may do it, but it is hard to do on a forum less its in a one on one debate.

 

[SpeaksForTheTrees]

Hi.

As an atheist, I couldn't care less about attempts at reconciling science and religion. In fact, it's in my interest to highlight the many, many scientific blunders in the Bible.

But I'm also an honest guy. I like truth. And the truth about the creation stories in Genesis is that the authors hadn't intended the text to be taken as history.

To quote Rationalwiki:



This is a mainstream, scholarly understanding of the Genesis stories, and it's a view taken by many smart Christians as well, such as the previous pope in his book "A Catholic Understanding of the Creation and the Fall."

What do the YEC folks have to say about this?

If God showed himself to some they would want more , want to be it , not happy as human , would want more and more and more until you was more power full than god himself. Is why we here imho

 

[SpeaksForTheTrees]

And without a two days of rest everyone be eating rice with a few geneticlly altered real gods on earth living in nuclear radiation proof gated cities .

 

[Rival]

Religion isn't limited to the Bible and Christianity. I think there are more Pagans than Christians on this site, you'd do better to learn all about Asatru or Druidry or Hinduism.

 

[rusra02]

Hi.

As an atheist, I couldn't care less about attempts at reconciling science and religion. In fact, it's in my interest to highlight the many, many scientific blunders in the Bible.

But I'm also an honest guy. I like truth. And the truth about the creation stories in Genesis is that the authors hadn't intended the text to be taken as history.

To quote Rationalwiki:



This is a mainstream, scholarly understanding of the Genesis stories, and it's a view taken by many smart Christians as well, such as the previous pope in his book "A Catholic Understanding of the Creation and the Fall."

What do the YEC folks have to say about this?

While not a YEC, I believe the events recorded in Genesis are historical facts. "Smart Christians" who reject the account of creation are, IMO, repudiating true Christianity. Jesus taught that the events in Genesis occurred. (Matthew 19:5,6) His life , ministry, and death served to undo the damage caused by the first man Adam. (1 Corinthians 15:22) The events of the 4th creative day were not the creation of the sun, moon, and stars. These were already in existence, as Genesis 1:1 affirms. These became visible on the earth during the 4th creative "day", in the expanse or atmosphere. Nor does the Genesis account bear any resemblance to the fanciful pagan creation stories.

 

[Iti oj]

I view Genesis as mainly, an allegory.I don't think we can say with certainty what the 'authors' had in mind, because fundamentalist Christians take Genesis as literal, and that could very well mean that they view Genesis as both a science and historical text.

But did fundamentalist write the bible? How they view it and what the author had in mind might not match.

I'm not sure we know what they intended.

 

[viole]

I view Genesis as mainly, an allegory.I don't think we can say with certainty what the 'authors' had in mind, because fundamentalist Christians take Genesis as literal, and that could very well mean that they view Genesis as both a science and historical text.

The authors? I thought it was one Author.

Ciao

- viole

 

[Rival]

The authors? I thought it was one Author.

Ciao

- viole

Genesis has at least two different authors. You can see it where one prefers to write 'YHWH' and the other 'El' for God.

 

[Parsimony]

What if science one day proved the existence of God?

It wouldn't make any difference when it comes to the creationism vs. evolution debate: there are people on both sides who believe in God.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

Hi.

As an atheist, I couldn't care less about attempts at reconciling science and religion. In fact, it's in my interest to highlight the many, many scientific blunders in the Bible.

But I'm also an honest guy. I like truth. And the truth about the creation stories in Genesis is that the authors hadn't intended the text to be taken as history.

To quote Rationalwiki:



This is a mainstream, scholarly understanding of the Genesis stories, and it's a view taken by many smart Christians as well, such as the previous pope in his book "A Catholic Understanding of the Creation and the Fall."

What do the YEC folks have to say about this?

Credit where it is due, Genesis told us the universe actually began in a specific creation event
Atheists overwhelmingly predicted static, eternal, steady state models (no creation = no creator)

which turned out to be more scientific?

 

[Revoltingest]

Credit where it is due, Genesis told us the universe actually began in a specific creation event
Atheists overwhelmingly predicted static, eternal, steady state models (no creation = no creator)
which turned out to be more scientific?

The atheists, of course!
(And also the believers who practice science. Atheists can't take sole credit.)
But I bet you don't know why I say this.
Guess first, & then I'll tell you why I claim as I do.
It'll be fun!

 

[Ouroboros]

What if science one day proved the existence of God?

It wouldn't prove the literal interpretation of Genesis though.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

The atheists, of course!
(And also the believers who practice science. Atheists can't take sole credit.)
But I bet you don't know why I say this.
Guess first, & then I'll tell you why I claim as I do.
It'll be fun!

Okay, that's a tough one, but I will humor you- Lemaitre was really an atheist masquerading as a priest?

 

[Revoltingest]

Okay, that's a tough one, but I will humor you- Lemaitre was really an atheist masquerading as a priest?

Hah!
Not even close.
Science is all about one theory being replaced by a better one.
As George Box said (paraphrasing).....
All theories are wrong, but some are useful.
The scientific method is all about inadequacy, error, & improvement in understanding.
Thus, rejection of the steady state theory (which was in dispute, btw) in favor of the Big Bang is very scientific.
And I guarantee that they're not done yet.
Many theoretical pillars will be knocked over still.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

Hah!
Not even close.
Science is all about one theory being replaced by a better one.
As George Box said (paraphrasing).....
All theories are wrong, but some are useful.
The scientific method is all about inadequacy, error, & improvement in understanding.
Thus, rejection of the steady state theory (which was in dispute, btw) in favor of the Big Bang is very scientific.
And I guarantee that they're not done yet.
Many theoretical pillars will be knocked over still.

Science perhaps- ideally, but atheism is something entirely different, diametrically opposed in this case

Science validated the Bible's version of creation- and the primary atheist opponent who coined the pejorative term 'big bang' refused to accept it till his dying day.