Evolution or Creation?

[scooter1369]

Originally Posted by BUCKYLE

The Boren family is evolution in action.

touche

[Brewtus]

Originally Posted by muffler dragon

FWIW, my Hebrew speaking friends have informed me that Genesis 1-2 is not presented to represent a strictly literal interpretation.

One legitimately scientific book that I have read was written by Dr. Gerald Schroeder: Genesis & The Big Bang. He writes from the POV that science and the Bible need not be antagonistic. Rather interesting.

If your friends don't interpret Genesis 1-2 as literal, then how do they interpret it? Are other parts of the OT not to be taken as literal, such as Noah's flood? If some scripture is literal and some not, how is one to know what is factual and what is a parable?

Science and the Bible can only be compatible when one area of expertise does not extend into the other. The problem is that the Bible gives a lot of "factual" detail (if read literally) on natural history which is not supported by science. It also gives details of historical events (miracles, virgin birth, being raised from the dead, etc.) that could theoretically be studied and confirmed by science. The only way for the Bible and science to be compatible is to interpret the Bible as not being literal, which then leads to a huge credibility issue.

[jwinslow]

Science and the Bible can only be compatible when one area of expertise does not extend into the other.

I don't see you abiding by this principle in the least.

[t_BuckeyeScott]

Originally Posted by Brewtus

If your friends don't interpret Genesis 1-2 as literal, then how do they interpret it? Are other parts of the OT not to be taken as literal, such as Noah's flood? If some scripture is literal and some not, how is one to know what is factual and what is a parable?

Science and the Bible can only be compatible when one area of expertise does not extend into the other. The problem is that the Bible gives a lot of "factual" detail (if read literally) on natural history which is not supported by science. It also gives details of historical events (miracles, virgin birth, being raised from the dead, etc.) that could theoretically be studied and confirmed by science. The only way for the Bible and science to be compatible is to interpret the Bible as not being literal, which then leads to a huge credibility issue.

It's amazing we agree on some of these points.

[Brewtus]

Originally Posted by jwinslow

I don't see you abiding by this principle in the least.

Sure I do. I've never claimed that science can disprove the ultimate existence of a supreme being/creator. I even acknowledge the (slight) possibililty that God exists; I can't be 100% sure about anything. But when the Bible makes claims about things that have happened in the past that should have left telltale evidence, the Bible is intruding into the area of science and should be scrutinized.

[MaxBuck]

Originally Posted by Brewtus

... the Bible is intruding into the area of science and should be scrutinized.

The Bible doesn't "intrude" into anything. The Bible is what the Bible is -- a collection of sacred texts that document the spiritual evolution of mankind as we strive to understand God's plan for our life. That evolution includes (for Christians via the NT) introduction of the Messiah and His reminders and clarifications of the meaning of the Covenant.

Plenty of people "scrutinize" the Bible, and most arrive at the destination they had in mind all along (IMO). That's part of the problem with any story that contains allegory, parable, and history all rolled up in one. So many folks choose to see parable where I see fact, and vice versa. It's why there are so many sects and denominations (and to a large extent, why Jews, Christians and Muslims find ourselves at odds with one another).

[jwinslow]

I'm referring to the overriding principle - or tone - that you're revealling quite clearly in recent posts on this subject (here and in another thread), that theologians and the Bible should stay out of the Scientist's realm, yet you have no problem leaping into their realm and challenging their field of expertise. It's just a bit inconsistent.

It also gives details of historical events (miracles, virgin birth, being raised from the dead, etc.) that could theoretically be studied and confirmed by science.

How exactly is one supposed to study and confirm these by science?

[NJ-Buckeye]

Just for the record...

pretty obvious to anyone that knows me... that evolution is the correct answer...

that gorilla you saw at the zoo ... is pretty close to my pic except he's hairier... same thighs, shoulders... and refrigerator build... plus my knuckles scrape the ground... we're definitely related...

[muffler dragon]

Excellent Questions. I'll go through them one by one.

Originally Posted by Brewtus

If your friends don't interpret Genesis 1-2 as literal, then how do they interpret it?

There are differing degrees to the interpretation of Genesis 1-2 that I have discussed and read. The most dominant theme would be that 1-2 shows a framework of how things progressed. This is something that Dr. Schroeder discusses more in-depth in the book. The days are not taken literally.

Originally Posted by Brewtus

Are other parts of the OT not to be taken as literal, such as Noah's flood?

It's a case by case basis. Noach's flood is considered factual; however, the scale is not necessarily global.

Originally Posted by Brewtus

If some scripture is literal and some not, how is one to know what is factual and what is a parable?

Via two avenues:

1) The original Hebrew and/or
2) Jewish tradition

There's not one portion of the Jewish Bible that hasn't been dissected over and over again for understanding and interpretation.

Originally Posted by Brewtus

Science and the Bible can only be compatible when one area of expertise does not extend into the other.

I understand what you're saying, but I would agree only a part of the time.

Originally Posted by Brewtus

The problem is that the Bible gives a lot of "factual" detail (if read literally) on natural history which is not supported by science. It also gives details of historical events (miracles, virgin birth, being raised from the dead, etc.) that could theoretically be studied and confirmed by science. The only way for the Bible and science to be compatible is to interpret the Bible as not being literal, which then leads to a huge credibility issue.

Once again, I understand what you're saying, but I can't agree completely with that.

It should also be noted that I am not making any claims regarding the Christian New Testament. When I say, "Bible", I am referring to the Jewish portion (Genesis => Malachi).

[Brewtus]

Originally Posted by MaxBuck

The Bible doesn't "intrude" into anything. The Bible is what the Bible is -- a collection of sacred texts that document the spiritual evolution of mankind as we strive to understand God's plan for our life. That evolution includes (for Christians via the NT) introduction of the Messiah and His reminders and clarifications of the meaning of the Covenant.

Bad wording on my part. I meant more so when Biblical concepts are pushed into areas where they have no business being - such as the topic of this thread: when Creationism is pushed into science classrooms.

Originally Posted by jwinslow

I'm referring to the overriding principle - or tone - that you're revealling quite clearly in recent posts on this subject (here and in another thread), that theologians and the Bible should stay out of the Scientist's realm, yet you have no problem leaping into their realm and challenging their field of expertise. It's just a bit inconsistent.
How exactly is one supposed to study and confirm these by science?

Well, for instance let's assume that the grave of Jesus Christ is found along with his remains (I'm sure there'd be tremendous controversy if this were to occur and many would still claim the remains aren't really of Christ). We could then do DNA analysis on them. If Christ was born of a virgin, would he have a Y chromosome? And if he did, where did it come from?

[Gatorubet]

Science law could set the tone for Jindal- NOLA.com

Science law could set the tone for Jindal

Is it a promoter of academic freedom, or a 'Trojan horse'?
Friday, June 27, 2008 By Bill Barrow

BATON ROUGE -- Gov. Bobby Jindal attracted national attention and
strongly worded advice about how he should deal with the Louisiana
Science Education Act. Jindal ignored those calling for a veto and this
week signed the law that will allow local school boards to approve
supplemental materials for public school science classes as they discuss
evolution, cloning and global warming.

The state Board of Elementary and Secondary Education will have the
power to prohibit materials, though the bill does not spell out how state
officials should go about policing local instructional practices.

A subject of considerable debate, but receiving few "nay" votes, in the
legislative session that ended Monday, the bill is lauded by its supporters as
a great step forward for academic freedom.

Critics call it a back-door attempt to replay old battles about including
biblical creationism or intelligent design in science curricula, a point
defenders reject based on a clause that the law "shall not be construed to
promote any religious doctrine . . . or promote discrimination for or against
religion or nonreligion."

In signing the bill, Jindal issued a brief statement that read in part: "I will
continue to consistently support the ability of school boards and BESE to
make the best decisions to ensure a quality education for our children."

Political observers said Jindal's signature will please one of his key local
constituencies: conservative Protestants in north Louisiana. Jindal's long-
term political challenge, they said, particularly if the Brown University
biology graduate ever seeks national office, is not allowing his political
image to be defined by such moves.

[jwinslow]

Well, for instance let's assume that the grave of Jesus Christ is found along with his remains (I'm sure there'd be tremendous controversy if this were to occur and many would still claim the remains aren't really of Christ). We could then do DNA analysis on them. If Christ was born of a virgin, would he have a Y chromosome? And if he did, where did it come from?

Seeing as we neither have those remains nor any way to verify they were his, this doesn't really satisfy your claim of what science could theoretically study and confirm.

[generaladm]

One would think that the creation/evolution debate should have stopped after the Scopes trial, around 1925, IIRC. I can tolerate the intelligent design theory, if people need to think that. Any debate where one side's argument is "Because God said so" is never going to go anywhere. With the Creation Museum right across the river in the KY (I haven't been, but I hear it's hilarious), there has been much discussion locally. The creationists would do much better if they had more competent spokespeople. I saw a local news show with scientists and creationist going head to head, the scientists were better versed in the scripture. One problem is that creationism has to dispute all science, not just evolution. I was told that one of the CM's exhibits tries to assert that the Sun used to orbit the Earth. I guess gravity is just a theory too. I don't care if people choose to believe in that, but it has no business being taught in schools. There's a place for that, it's called church.

[Brewtus]

Originally Posted by jwinslow

Seeing as we neither have those remains nor any way to verify they were his, this doesn't really satisfy your claim of what science could theoretically study and confirm.

It was a hypothetical example and was meant to show what science could theoretically study and confirm.

Here are some more Biblical claims that should have left behind verifiable evidence, yet none can be found: Adam and Eve are the first humans and all of mankind are their descendents (no genetic evidence whatsoever to support this), humans originated separately from the rest of the animal kingdom (no genetic and fossil evidence to support this), global flood (no geologic or fossil evidence to support this), etc. Since this is the evolution/creation thread I'll keep it to those main areas.

[Buckeyeskickbuttocks]

I'd like to pat myself on the back for staying out of this....