"Uncle Davey" <noway@jose.com> wrote in message news:<c1siml$h2d$0@pita.alt.net>...
> > On Sat, 28 Feb 2004 21:01:23 +0000, Uncle Davey wrote:
> >
> > >
> > >> Floyd wrote:
> > >> > "Uncle Davey" <noway@jose.com> wrote in message
> news:<c1q5ag$pvb$0@pita.alt.net>...
> > >> >
> > >> >>news:earle.jones-ED8BC4.10513827022004@netnews.comcast.net...
> > >> >>
> > >> >>>In article <b9b3de8.0402270533.6080f790@posting.google.com>,
> > >> >>> branchofjesse@hotmail.com (Jerzy Jakubowski) wrote:
> > >> >>>
> > >> >>>
> > >> >>>>eros_talk_origins@hotmail.com (Eros) wrote in message
> > >> >>>>news:<ab0de77f.0402262024.16c3ac25@posting.google.com>...
> > >> >>>>
> > >> >>>>>"Jason Gastrich" <newsgroups@jcsm.org> wrote in message
> > >> >>>>>news:<Le__b.2503$Bb5.698@twister.socal.rr.com>...
> > >> >>>>>
> > >> >>>>>>Snowbird wrote:
> > >> >>>>>>
> > >> >>>>>>>Jason Gastrich wrote:
> > >> >>>>>>>
> > >> >>>>>>>
> > >> >>>>>>>>Even if all of those quotes were fabrications or exaggerations,
> > >> >>
> > >> >> it
> > >> >>
> > >> >>>>>>>>still wouldn't help the theory of evolutionism any.
> > >> >>>>>>>
> > >> >>>>>>>There is no theory of evolutionism. You are not doing Christians
> > >> >>
> > >> >> any
> > >> >>
> > >> >>>>>>>favours by parroting nonsense like this.
> > >> >>>>>>>
> > >> >>>>>>> > On its own merits, it
>
> > >> >>>>>>>>requires tons of faith.
> > >> >>>>>>>
> > >> >>>>>>>Since when has tonnes of evidence required faith?
> > >> >>>>>>>
> > >> >>>>>>> > It requires belief in things that have never been
>
> > >> >>>>>>>>seen or proven.
> > >> >>>>>>>
> > >> >>>>>>>Apart from that fact that this is false, doesn't your faith in
> > >> >>>>>>>God require belief in things never seen or proven?
> > >> >>>>>>>
> > >> >>>>>>> > This quote rabbit trail is a convenient somescreen for the
>
> > >> >>>>>>>>ones that don't want to confess that there is precious little
> > >> >>>>>>>>evidence for the theory of evolutionism.
> > >> >>>>>>>
> > >> >>>>>>>1) There is no theory of evolutionism. 2) Even if there were, it
> > >> >>>>>>>would be different from the theory of *evolution*. 3) There is a
> > >> >>>>>>>huge mountain of evidence for
> > >> >>
> > >> >> evolution.
> > >> >>
> > >> >>>>>>>Creationists just deny it.
> > >> >>>>>>>
> > >> >>>>>>>It's sad that you can't see the true beauty and reality of
> > >> >>
> > >> >> creation.
> > >> >>
> > >> >>>>>>Yeah, believing I have a common ancestor with a banana and came
> > >> >>>>>>from
> > >> >>
> > >> >> a
> > >> >>
> > >> >>>>>>rock.
> > >> >>>>>>Now that's true beauty and reality! Not.
> > >> >>>>>>
> > >> >>>>>>Jason
> > >> >>>>>
> > >> >>>>>
> > >> >>>>>Yeah, it's much better to believe you have a common ancestor with
> > >> >>>>>nothingness and came from a pile of dirt, like the Bible says. Now
> > >> >>>>>that's true beauty and reality! Not.
> > >> >>>>>
> > >> >>>>>EROS.
> > >> >>>>
> > >> >>>>
>
> >>>>------------------------------------------------------------------------
> -
> -
> > >> >>
> > >> >> --
> > >> >>
> > >> >>>>>--
> > >> >>>>>"The next day..., Jesus was hungry. Seeing in the distance a fig
> > >> >>>>>tree in leaf, he went to find out if it had any fruit. When he
> > >> >>>>>reached it, he found nothing but leaves, because it was not the
> > >> >>>>>season for figs. Then he said to the tree, "May no one ever eat
> > >> >>>>>fruit from you again." ... In the morning..., they saw the fig
> tree
> > >> >>>>>withered from the roots. Peter ... said to Jesus, "Rabbi, look!
> The
> > >> >>>>>fig tree ... has withered!"" -- Mark 11:12-14, 20-21 (NIV)
> > >> >>>>>
> > >> >>>>>Points to remember:-
> > >> >>>>>Jesus was hungry.
> > >> >>>>>He looked for figs on a tree.
> > >> >>>>>But it was not fig season.
> > >> >>>>>
> > >> >>>>>Questions to ponder:-
> > >> >>>>>If it wasn't fig season, why would even a moron look for figs? Is
> > >> >>>>>talking to a tree and then killing it for not bearing fruit out of
> > >> >>>>>season a reasonable response, by any standard?
> > >> >>>>
> > >> >>>>
> > >> >>>>Don't worry about the tree, the LORD was just making a point. Worry
> > >> >>
> > >> >> about
> > >> >>
> > >> >>>>your soul.
> > >> >>>>
> > >> >>>>Uncle Davey
> > >> >>>>
> > >> >>>>
> > >> >>>*
> > >> >>>Why don't you explain the Lord's point, Uncle Davey. He walks up to
> > >> >>>a fig tree out of season and is obviously pissed and begins to talk
> > >> >>>to the tree: "May no one ever eat fruit from you again."
> > >> >>>
> > >> >>>And the poor tree withers and dies.
> > >> >>>
> > >> >>>Now, Davey, please explain the point.
> > >> >>>
> > >> >>>earle
> > >> >>>*
> > >> >>>
> > >> >>>
> > >> >>The point is that we should bear fruit.
> > >> >>
> > >> >>What's the Greek again? "Hekaston dendron ek tou idiou karpou
> gignosketai".
> > >> >>
> > >> >>Uncle Davey.
> > >> >
> > >> >
> > >> > Mammals should bear fruit? Hair, fine. Milk, some of us, sometimes.
> > >> > But *fruit*???
[the trap is set]
> > >> >
> > >> >
> > >> Hey, for creation "science" literally *anything* is possible! :-)
> > >>
> > >> Seppo P.
[the trap is baited]
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > > We are talking about fruit in it's figurative sense, presumably.
> > >
> > > If a literal meaning is plainly impossible, it must be true only on the
> > > figurative level.
[the prey hungily approaches the bait]
> > >
> >
> > Like Genesis One and Two?
[BANG! the trap springs shut and the prey is caught by the neck]
> >
>
> If it were sure that we couldn't understand them on a literal level, then
> they would have to be understood on a metaphorical level.
>
> But I'm not going down the road of understanding things in a metaphorical
> level unless I'm sure they're not meant on a literal level.
>
> Some things are meant to be understood, I would suppose, on more than one
> level.
>
> But I doubt that there are things which should not be understood on any
> level.
>
> Is Genesis 1 and 2 actually a fitting metaphor of evolution, or is it saying
> the opposite?
>
> Uncle Davey
It's actually a *very* fitting metaphor for evolution, if one wishes
to understand it that way and is willing to think about the text on a
more than superficial level.
001:011 And God said, Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb
yielding seed, and the fruit tree yielding fruit after his
kind, whose seed is in itself, upon the earth: and it was so.
001:012 And the earth brought forth grass, and herb yielding seed
after his kind, and the tree yielding fruit, whose seed was in
itself, after his kind: and God saw that it was good.
Note that God does not directly create the grass, the herb-yielding
seed, or the fruit tree yeilding fruit. He merely "lets" the earth do
so.
001:020 And God said, Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving
creature that hath life, and fowl that may fly above the earth
in the open firmament of heaven.
001:021 And God created great whales, and every living creature that
moveth, which the waters brought forth abundantly, after their
kind, and every winged fowl after his kind: and God saw that
it was good.
001:022 And God blessed them, saying, Be fruitful, and multiply, and
fill the waters in the seas, and let fowl multiply in the
earth.
In Gen. 1:20, again God "lets" the waters (natural world) bring forth
the creatures that have life. Gen 1:21 specifies that God "created"
the whales and such, but does not specify a mechanism by which He did
so. Gen 1:22 clearly specifies that reproduction is what He wants the
organisms to do, so reproduction is a reasonable measure of "success."
001:024 And God said, Let the earth bring forth the living creature
after his kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the
earth after his kind: and it was so.
001:025 And God made the beast of the earth after his kind, and cattle
after their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the earth
after his kind: and God saw that it was good.
001:026 And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our
likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea,
and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over
all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth
upon the earth.
001:027 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God
created he him; male and female created he them.
001:028 And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and
multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have
dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the
air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth.
The same pattern noted above is repeated in Gen. 1:24-1:28. We see
God allowing the earth to create life (as long as God continues to get
the credit for creation) and we see being fruitful and multiplying is
considered pleasing to God, and is therefore a measure of success. We
also see that other types of land animals existed before humans, and
that humans are "in God's image," although neither the details of the
creation, nor the specifics of the image are revealed (I personally
interpret the later as "having consciousness and intentions, rather
than being ruled entirely by instinct" and not necessarily as a
suggestion that we *look* like God, but your interpretation may vary.)
Therefore, yes, the relevant sections of Gen. 1 *can* be understood as
not only *compatible with* evolution, but in fact, necessitating it.
You will find no mention of the fixity of species, only mention that
offspring tend to resemble their parents more than they resemble other
organisms (a central tenet of Darwin's thought) in which they
reproduce "according to their kind."
Thus Gen. 1 specifically and explicitly states the following:
1) The earth and the waters "brought forth" plant and animal life.
2) Offspring resemble their parents more than they resemble other
organisms.
3) Reproductive success is a good thing.
You will find no mention of any mechanism whatsoever, so
hypothetically, the mechanism of creation *could be* anything at all.
Darwin knew his Bible, of course, and was aware of these verses. In
his work, he noted that not all organisms are equally capable of
reproducing (and therefore of living up to God's wishes for them).
Those that were best at creating offspring (doing what God told them
to do) would naturally become more common than those who were less
able (and therefore less pleasing in the eyes of God). As the
generations pass, those organisms who are best at reproducing (and
therefore most pleasing to the Lord) would fill the earth, and those
who were least adept at carrying out God's command would be removed
(go extinct). As a result of differential reproduction, the plants
and animals brought forth by the earth and waters would become
increasingly pleasing to the eyes of God.
So Gen. 1 can clearly be understood as "true" in a figurative sense,
and insofar as it is figuratively true, it is compatable with
evolution.
However, there remains your question about whether or not Genesis can
be read literally. Paleontology clearly demonstrates that land
animals existed long before fruit trees, and sea life existed before
either. We can also surmise that the sun and light must have come
into existence more or less simultaneously. We know that the sun is
the source of daylight, so the origin of daylight can not logically be
assumed to have preceeded the origin of the sun by three days.
In short, Genesis 1 can *only* be reasonably understood as a
"truth-containing" narrative insofar as it is understood as
metaphorical or figurative and mythopoetic. Insofar as some people
attempt to read Gen. 1 as a historical, non-poetic account, it is
simply inaccurate. That's no suprise, since the people of the Bronze
Age could not possibly have understood modern genetics, paleontology,
geology, or astrophysics. Therefore, if Genesis *had* been written as
an accurate historical description, the people of the time would not
have understood it, any more than a small child who has not yet
mastered counting could understand a calculus proof. The creation
account in Genesis is wisely phrased in a way that Bronze age farmers
and pastoralists could understand, so that they could get the main
idea (God is responsible for the origin of everything) without getting
hung up on irrelevant details. The mechanism for creating the various
species of plants and animals (which we now know was evolution) is
simply elided in the text because it is not relevant to the narrative.
Genesis teaches us that "God did it." Modern biology teaches us
*how* it happened. These two independent sources of knowledge are
easily reconcilable, and a wise believer would do his/her best to
reconcile them. After all, the physical world is no less God's
handiwork than the text of Genesis, and some might argue it is even
more so. HTH, HAND
-Floyd
|
| Follow-ups: | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 | 27 | 28 | 29 |
| 30 | 31 |
|