Giving Up Darwin

Duke Silver

Member Who Talks (A Lot!)
Oct 29, 2008
50,745
46,753
0
Unsure. The bible, to be clear, and Genesis, isn't meant to be a comprehensive history of the universe and how it was formed.

These guys weren't scientists and weren't trying to document anything scientific.
That’s certainly clear.
 

bHero

Member Who Talks (A Lot!)
Jan 19, 2012
39,993
55,348
0
Keller
barkingcarnival.fantake.com
That’s certainly clear.
The bible makes a lot more sense the more I learn to read it like a 1st century Jew.

I'm slowly starting in on learning Hebrew, no rush, but that's next.

And to be clear, I don't think anything is "false" in the bible, only that they had a different context than our 21st century view of the world.
 

Duke Silver

Member Who Talks (A Lot!)
Oct 29, 2008
50,745
46,753
0
The bible makes a lot more sense the more I learn to read it like a 1st century Jew.

I'm slowly starting in on learning Hebrew, no rush, but that's next.

And to be clear, I don't think anything is "false" in the bible, only that they had a different context than our 21st century view of the world.
Learning Hebrew?! My god don’t you have better things to do with your time?
 

Duke Silver

Member Who Talks (A Lot!)
Oct 29, 2008
50,745
46,753
0
How so? The idea that the world was created by an Almighty God in a set number of days is no more crazy than believing the creation story is still true but more of a parable in how it was written.
They’re both insane in that they have no evidence for fantastical stories.
 

Duke Silver

Member Who Talks (A Lot!)
Oct 29, 2008
50,745
46,753
0
Exactly, you think it's insane to believe in God so I don't believe the distinction between whether I'm a literalist or not is that important.
Well, one is more insane.

I don’t think it’s necessarily insane to believe in god. We’d have to institutionalize most people. I just think it’s wrong, especially a specific god like Christianity.
 

40A

Member Who Talks (A Lot!)
Feb 20, 2012
12,466
5,275
0
Oklahoma City, OK
Well, one is more insane.

I don’t think it’s necessarily insane to believe in god. We’d have to institutionalize most people. I just think it’s wrong, especially a specific god like Christianity.
It's just a funny distinction to me to make. Whether God Himself created the universe as it's written, literally, or He inspired Moses (with help) to write it takes the same amount of faith to me.
 
  • Like
Reactions: bHero

SAhornfan

Member Who Talks (A Lot!)
Oct 29, 2008
30,782
19,741
0
San Antonio, TX
Care to explain?
I think it depends on what you mean by "still true". A condensed story, using familiar imagery, to tell how the earth originated is probable, since there wasn't written language at the time (unless you're going to tell me the earth is only 10,000 years old). The literal interpretation of said story is where I have an issue.
 

40A

Member Who Talks (A Lot!)
Feb 20, 2012
12,466
5,275
0
Oklahoma City, OK
I think it depends on what you mean by "still true". A condensed story, using familiar imagery, to tell how the earth originated is probable, since there wasn't written language at the time (unless you're going to tell me the earth is only 10,000 years old). The literal interpretation of said story is where I have an issue.
That's fine. I find interpreting Genesis as parable to be a slippery slope, theologically.
 
  • Like
Reactions: bHero

bHero

Member Who Talks (A Lot!)
Jan 19, 2012
39,993
55,348
0
Keller
barkingcarnival.fantake.com
I think it depends on what you mean by "still true". A condensed story, using familiar imagery, to tell how the earth originated is probable, since there wasn't written language at the time (unless you're going to tell me the earth is only 10,000 years old). The literal interpretation of said story is where I have an issue.
Define literal?

In the past here, I've pointed out some flaws with our recently traditional "literal" line of reasoning.

There is an issue if we take the bible to be literal in our 21st American Christianity context. The book of revelation is not literally talking about a battle between a pregnant star-lady and a dragon. The book of genesis isn't literally talking about a snake in the garden. But there was something alive, serpentine in nature and subversive to the will of God.

These things are obvious to early Jews and Christians. Well known. But somewhere in the last few hundred years, Christians went about taking a literal scientific interpretation of a book in their current context, which it was not written to be. The authors did not know medicine like we do. Hell, the greeks and jews thought your sperm was stored in your hair!

Here's an even easier example.

When revelation talks about a star falling, it isn't talking about a meteor. Why? Because they didn't understand that meteors came from the sky. When they talk about stars falling, they are talking about spiritual events, heavenly beings coming down. Why? Because ancient cultures believed that anything that moved independent of the wind, was alive. Therefore they thought the stars... were alive. And they didn't see a vastness in our universe. They saw a "lid," or a firmament, over a flat disc shaped earth and there couldn't be stars in the sense we interpret the writing of the bible.

Another example is the use of the number 40. Ancient Jews used that number in a similar context to how we'd say "umpteen." How long did the rain last. Umpteen years! 40 years! It means, in their colloquial usage, "until completion, until the thing is done, too long dog." It could mean the exact term 40, but very often it was a "poetic" turn of phrase (like using the number 7).

The bible is not meant to be literal in our context, but in theirs.
 

sacatomato horn

Member Who Talks
Sep 15, 2016
601
1,218
0
Hour long video? Damn I’ll have to watch it tonight on 2x speed

Is he “giving up Darwin” as in saying evolution doesn’t happen, or that God had a hand in it? If it’s the latter, that’s basically just saying whether you’re religious or not, right? Seems like the ideas kinda coexist if evolution still happens in both scenarios. You’re just arguing the start was different, but the process becomes the same or similar
The argument is that Darwin's theory relies on eons of time and beneficial genetic mutations to produce new species that are better adapted for survival and reproduction. Gelernter says that incremental genetic adaptions as part of natural selection within a species that can turn a saber tooth tiger into a mountain lion (micro evolution) don't also demonstrate how a trilobite eventually mutated its way into a chimpanzee (macro evolution). His two points are:

1. The Cambrian explosion 500 million years ago where complex life replaced earlier, simpler forms over a short (in geologic terms) period. The fossil record in the boundary between the two epochs is missing evidence of intermediate forms that confirm evolution from simple to complex.
2. Large mutations will kill an animal long before it can reproduce, and the creation of new, better functioning proteins that would explain macro-evolution of old species into new is mathematically remote.

Basically, Darwin evolution does not explain new species creation. Something else is at work. (Or somebody)

I think this is the thrust of his position. I could be wrong. I have to say I'm skeptical, but it's thought provoking, even without bringing religion into the debate.
The Claremont article that Calvin has in his OP is a bit long, but it's readable by a non scientist like me and doesn't take an hour to get through.
 

Duke Silver

Member Who Talks (A Lot!)
Oct 29, 2008
50,745
46,753
0
The argument is that Darwin's theory relies on eons of time and beneficial genetic mutations to produce new species that are better adapted for survival and reproduction. Gelernter says that incremental genetic adaptions as part of natural selection within a species that can turn a saber tooth tiger into a mountain lion (micro evolution) don't also demonstrate how a trilobite eventually mutated its way into a chimpanzee (macro evolution). His two points are:

1. The Cambrian explosion 500 million years ago where complex life replaced earlier, simpler forms over a short (in geologic terms) period. The fossil record in the boundary between the two epochs is missing evidence of intermediate forms that confirm evolution from simple to complex.
2. Large mutations will kill an animal long before it can reproduce, and the creation of new, better functioning proteins that would explain macro-evolution of old species into new is mathematically remote.

Basically, Darwin evolution does not explain new species creation. Something else is at work. (Or somebody)

I think this is the thrust of his position. I could be wrong. I have to say I'm skeptical, but it's thought provoking, even without bringing religion into the debate.
The Claremont article that Calvin has in his OP is a bit long, but it's readable by a non scientist like me and doesn't take an hour to get through.
That deals with 1 and 2. It's beyond my ken or willingness to read it all. But it bascially says Gelentner is ignorant of the fossil record and the time it took.
 

calvin farquhar

Member Who Talks (A Lot!)
Dec 19, 2017
8,521
15,542
0
Define literal?

In the past here, I've pointed out some flaws with our recently traditional "literal" line of reasoning.

There is an issue if we take the bible to be literal in our 21st American Christianity context. The book of revelation is not literally talking about a battle between a pregnant star-lady and a dragon. The book of genesis isn't literally talking about a snake in the garden. But there was something alive, serpentine in nature and subversive to the will of God.

These things are obvious to early Jews and Christians. Well known. But somewhere in the last few hundred years, Christians went about taking a literal scientific interpretation of a book in their current context, which it was not written to be. The authors did not know medicine like we do. Hell, the greeks and jews thought your sperm was stored in your hair!

Here's an even easier example.

When revelation talks about a star falling, it isn't talking about a meteor. Why? Because they didn't understand that meteors came from the sky. When they talk about stars falling, they are talking about spiritual events, heavenly beings coming down. Why? Because ancient cultures believed that anything that moved independent of the wind, was alive. Therefore they thought the stars... were alive. And they didn't see a vastness in our universe. They saw a "lid," or a firmament, over a flat disc shaped earth and there couldn't be stars in the sense we interpret the writing of the bible.

Another example is the use of the number 40. Ancient Jews used that number in a similar context to how we'd say "umpteen." How long did the rain last. Umpteen years! 40 years! It means, in their colloquial usage, "until completion, until the thing is done, too long dog." It could mean the exact term 40, but very often it was a "poetic" turn of phrase (like using the number 7).

The bible is not meant to be literal in our context, but in theirs.

 
  • Like
Reactions: bodieman and bHero

sacatomato horn

Member Who Talks
Sep 15, 2016
601
1,218
0
That deals with 1 and 2. It's beyond my ken or willingness to read it all. But it bascially says Gelentner is ignorant of the fossil record and the time it took.
Well I tried to read that and got distracted by Carmen Diaz

I will say Gelentner's paleo argument does seem to not hold up to peer review. The molecular level argument, I'm not so sure. A while back I read a book about the evolution of the human immune system, the author was a molecular biologist and was persuasive in his conclusion that such immense complexity could not have come about from random mutations. I tried to read a rebuttal and it was way over my head. Can't remember the author.
 

jamesrh

Member Who Talks (A Lot!)
Oct 29, 2008
3,604
2,773
0
Most people who believe in creation theory don't allow for the timeframe necessary for "classical" marco-evolutionary processes to operate. Most of the model is challenged on the grounds that the generations-required timeframes won't work.

Intelligent design people tend to operate on a spectrum, with some who think it's 100% true, to others who think it's wholly inaccurate.
Macro-evolution being speciation, micro evolution being small stuff like different colored hair.
Don't know if I wholly agree with the first statement. There are plenty of old-earth creationists who believe in the standard ages of the earth, solar system, etc. but see that the math doesn't work for unguided evolution even over that time-frame.
 
  • Like
Reactions: bHero and Shane3

jamesrh

Member Who Talks (A Lot!)
Oct 29, 2008
3,604
2,773
0
How so? The idea that the world was created by an Almighty God in a set number of days is no more crazy than believing the creation story is still true but more of a parable in how it was written.
Of course a literal interpretation of Genesis 1 doesn't not require resulting belief that the earth was created in 6 24 hour periods of time.
 
  • Like
Reactions: bHero and 40A

Duke Silver

Member Who Talks (A Lot!)
Oct 29, 2008
50,745
46,753
0
Well I tried to read that and got distracted by Carmen Diaz

I will say Gelentner's paleo argument does seem to not hold up to peer review. The molecular level argument, I'm not so sure. A while back I read a book about the evolution of the human immune system, the author was a molecular biologist and was persuasive in his conclusion that such immense complexity could not have come about from random mutations. I tried to read a rebuttal and it was way over my head. Can't remember the author.
Well if I were creating things as an omnipotent, omniscient being, there wouldn’t be a need for an immune system.
 
  • Like
Reactions: bHero and J Galt

bHero

Member Who Talks (A Lot!)
Jan 19, 2012
39,993
55,348
0
Keller
barkingcarnival.fantake.com
That's fine. I find interpreting Genesis as parable to be a slippery slope, theologically.
People may want to call it a parable today, but that is not how the Jews saw the events, wrote the book, or the Sumerians. When I called it a polemic, I specifically meant that it was a Jewish perspective of the shared history in the region. The Sumerians (and others in the region) have a similar tale of history, with theirs from the perspective that god was the bad guy and their "lesser deities" were there good guys.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 40A and PFD

HornsWin

Member Who Talks (A Lot!)
Dec 13, 2013
7,200
10,608
0
People may want to call it a parable today, but that is not how the Jews saw the events, wrote the book, or the Sumerians. When I called it a polemic, I specifically meant that it was a Jewish perspective of the shared history in the region. The Sumerians (and others in the region) have a similar tale of history, with theirs from the perspective that god was the bad guy and their "lesser deities" were there good guys.
This was the one thing I really, truly enjoyed from my brief time in seminary. The course was officially about the Old Testament, but in fact, it was more of a comparative ancient near eastern religions course. Interesting as all get out, though I disagreed with certain of my professor's biblical interpretations (e.g., David and Jonathan were lovers).
 

bHero

Member Who Talks (A Lot!)
Jan 19, 2012
39,993
55,348
0
Keller
barkingcarnival.fantake.com
This was the one thing I really, truly enjoyed from my brief time in seminary. The course was officially about the Old Testament, but in fact, it was more of a comparative ancient near eastern religions course. Interesting as all get out, though I disagreed with certain of my professor's biblical interpretations (e.g., David and Jonathan were lovers).
That’s a new one. Oh boy. Wonders never cease.

I think one of my favorite parts of studying the early fathers was reading the destruction of the Levite Heresy (related to Gen6).
 
Last edited:

mcb0703!

Member Who Talks (A Lot!)
Feb 6, 2015
14,313
24,888
0
Well if I were creating things as an omnipotent, omniscient being, there wouldn’t be a need for an immune system.

Do you swear to tell the truth, the whole truth, & nothing but the truth so help you God? Wait, can I ask an evolutionist lawyer this?

I’m very confused
 
Last edited:

padrehorn11

Member Who Talks (A Lot!)
Oct 27, 2016
2,997
5,904
0
Texas
Yes, ID is just creationism light. Let’s have a debate about gravity, too.
I'm pretty sure neither you nor I nor probably anyone in this forum actually understand gravity well enough to really debate it intelligently. Unless you've been able to reconcile Quantum Theory and General Relativity better than anyone else to date. But gravity definitely exists. Pretty much the same with Evolution, overall, there's pretty much no question about the general idea of biological evolution being true... unless God is pulling a very complex and detailed practical joke on us. But, as the saying goes, the Devil is in the details. And we know a lot more now about those details, such as, oh...genomics and horizontal gene transfer. These details mean that the slow generation by generation working of natural selection is only one facet of biological evolution.

Now none of that says anything one way or the other about the possibility of God as the Creator of the Universe having a role in evolution.

But you just go ahead and believe what you want to, and I'll believe that biological evolution as most scientists understand it leaves plenty of room for God, or to be fair, for the denial of God. And in the end, neither your belief nor mine won't make any difference in this world.
 
Last edited:

rawhyde51

Member Who Talks
Feb 17, 2012
481
415
0
McKinney, TX
Define literal?

In the past here, I've pointed out some flaws with our recently traditional "literal" line of reasoning.

There is an issue if we take the bible to be literal in our 21st American Christianity context. The book of revelation is not literally talking about a battle between a pregnant star-lady and a dragon. The book of genesis isn't literally talking about a snake in the garden. But there was something alive, serpentine in nature and subversive to the will of God.

These things are obvious to early Jews and Christians. Well known. But somewhere in the last few hundred years, Christians went about taking a literal scientific interpretation of a book in their current context, which it was not written to be. The authors did not know medicine like we do. Hell, the greeks and jews thought your sperm was stored in your hair!

Here's an even easier example.

When revelation talks about a star falling, it isn't talking about a meteor. Why? Because they didn't understand that meteors came from the sky. When they talk about stars falling, they are talking about spiritual events, heavenly beings coming down. Why? Because ancient cultures believed that anything that moved independent of the wind, was alive. Therefore they thought the stars... were alive. And they didn't see a vastness in our universe. They saw a "lid," or a firmament, over a flat disc shaped earth and there couldn't be stars in the sense we interpret the writing of the bible.

Another example is the use of the number 40. Ancient Jews used that number in a similar context to how we'd say "umpteen." How long did the rain last. Umpteen years! 40 years! It means, in their colloquial usage, "until completion, until the thing is done, too long dog." It could mean the exact term 40, but very often it was a "poetic" turn of phrase (like using the number 7).

The bible is not meant to be literal in our context, but in theirs.
I’ll just add that the Bible is also meant to be interpreted by using the Bible, not from a western post modern mindset. We should interpret symbol, which the Bible uses often, by translating/interpreting through its own dictionary not some eisegesis. . Meaning stars falling in revelation would mean something to the like of authorities/rulers world falling (in context Babylon/Israel) - stars being images of rulers and authorities (I.e. in creation stars “governed the sky” and when Joseph has a dream of his brothers bowing down To him they were the sun moon and stars ).
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Shane3 and bHero

HornsWin

Member Who Talks (A Lot!)
Dec 13, 2013
7,200
10,608
0
That’s a new one. Oh boy. Wonders never cease.

I think one of my favorite parts of studying the early fathers was reading the destruction of the Levite Heresy (related to Gen6).
My professor didn't much like my indignant snort when she mentioned this, nor did she like my contradicting her at every "point", nor, for that matter, when I pointed out that the PS-USA (the denomination of this particular seminary), had long since ceased being relevant or even orthodox largely because it offered nothing to the world that could not be found in any secular institution.
 

40A

Member Who Talks (A Lot!)
Feb 20, 2012
12,466
5,275
0
Oklahoma City, OK
People may want to call it a parable today, but that is not how the Jews saw the events, wrote the book, or the Sumerians. When I called it a polemic, I specifically meant that it was a Jewish perspective of the shared history in the region. The Sumerians (and others in the region) have a similar tale of history, with theirs from the perspective that god was the bad guy and their "lesser deities" were there good guys.
No doubt I'm aware of the Sumerian history, I just don't think that just because they wrote it that way doesn't mean it wasn't the literal truth of creation.
 
  • Like
Reactions: bHero

bHero

Member Who Talks (A Lot!)
Jan 19, 2012
39,993
55,348
0
Keller
barkingcarnival.fantake.com
My professor didn't much like my indignant snort when she mentioned this, nor did she like my contradicting her at every "point", nor, for that matter, when I pointed out that the PS-USA (the denomination of this particular seminary), had long since ceased being relevant or even orthodox largely because it offered nothing to the world that could not be found in any secular institution.
Uber-Liberal churches are an inevitable outcome in a godless nation.