±«Óãtv

The net is closing on creationism. They have been reduced to denying IN PRINCIPLE that ANY scientific discover could provide evidence for evolution! That's as closed a mind as one could imagine.

Will, Dawkins & Davies were talking about a *proper* degree ;-). As for Ida, she is not a "missing link", just another one of millions of data points that support the current evolutionary model. She's exquisite, though. No need to get opinion from the idiots of Answers in Genesis - you may as well get comment from a goat.

I think Dawkins simply misspoke. Darwin obviously did finish his degree and graduated. As fir helio's claim, that's just arrogant nonsense. And helio doesn't speak for Dawkins, who will I'm sure take back the claim when he looks at this again.

"The net is closing on creationism. They have been reduced to denying IN PRINCIPLE that ANY scientific discover could provide evidence for evolution! That's as closed a mind as one could imagine."

Hear, hear. AiG's statement of faith says it all:



Quote from that page:

"By definition, no apparent, perceived, or claimed evidence in any field, including history and chronology, can be valid if it contradicts the Scriptural record."

So if reality says the literalist interpretation of the book of Genesis is wrong, then reality or our perception of it must be at fault. Duh.

Gus, a theology degree *is* irrelevant in the sciences, but you clearly missed my smiley. Many atheists have theology degrees - often that's what made them atheists. Wrong side of bed this morning?

Darwin started out studying medicine in Edinburgh, but dropped out. That is the degree to which Dawkins and Davies were referring. It is an interesting conversation, to be sure, but there's not that much new there. I enjoyed the little bit about 3D genetic codes (obviously only relevant for lifeforms in 3d+1 universes like ours!).

-H

Helio are you telepathic now? Dawkins got the facts wrong. It's no big deal, but let's just accept it. He's not infallible, you know.

H
"I enjoyed the little bit about 3D genetic codes (obviously only relevant for lifeforms in 3d+1 universes like ours!)."

I've an idea for a new discipline! Postmodern genetics. We'll use Tegmark's papers on Multiverses, and I'll dig out David Lewis' philosophical argument that every possible universe must exist. And we remind every skeptic that Alister McGrath has proved that there are no facts, only interpretations. He proved this because (a) he only quotes the latest thinking, and (b) he said it at the Gifford lectures, and you must be really clever if you're invited to give those!
We'll then start a journal on what life must be like in other parts of the multiverse - the parts with more tha five dimensions. You can pick the Title. So long as the articles describe what is logically possible, they get in. Because every possible mathematical system is actualised in some part of the multiverse, it will be essential that every article submitted to the journal have an equation that no one understands, but looks very deep. Every article must mention a buzz word from the popular science section in Waterstones - we'll favour "Anthropic Principle", "Gaia", Tipping Point", "String Theory" and "Adam Hart-Davis".
(We'll commission him to write - "What has the Fourth Level Multiverse Ever Done For You?")
Because everyone will be scared to admit that they don't understand the articles, and because they contain lots of buzz words we'll get cited all over the place. And this is only stage one of my nefarious scheme.
(A) Establish Scientific credibility for an idea no-one understands.
This will be the basis of our Cult! Look at how much money Hubbard made! We're smarter than him. SO we're bound to make more money.
Stage (B)- find a geeky looking guy who receives messages from regions of the multiverse where these multi-dimensional beings live. He must be socially inept, and recieve his messages in the form of equations.
Stage (C) will be - Establish Philosophical credibility. (Outside biblical studies Theologians believe whatever you tell them, so we'll get them onside by using the word "mystery" a lot.)
My plan is to argue that our Religion is rational as it embodies "Possibly Basic Beliefs". Certain beliefs are rational because in some part of an infinite universe some smart people are bound to think they are true.
Stage (D) devise a method for "interpreting" the equations that **only we can use**. This will allow us to create our product. (E) A method of putting people in mystical contact with the region of the multiverse in which they are happy and successful! They can then give themselves all the advice they need to become happy worthwhile individuals. This method of contacting your parallel self will involve mystical moods and literary deconstruction. Of course we cannot be held responsible for any mistakes that people make as the result of our methods, as it is hardly our fault if people give themselves bad advice!

I haven't got on to the other stages yet, but once I'm rich enough I will receive a revelation that tells me that I must go dwell on a desert Island with fourteen supermodels. That's an essential part of the plan.

Stick with me H - it's a foolproof plan. This time next year we'll be millionaires.
In some part of the multiverse.

GV

The Lemur like fossil is now added to the list of fossils which are misrepresented by the fossilized evolutionist. Lucy, Heidelberg Man, Nebraska Man, Piltdown Man, Peking Man, Neanderthal Man, New Guinea Man, Cro-Magnon Man, Lemur like Man, the evolutionary dream continues looking for the missing transitional link, some day the evolutionist will waken up out of his slumber to find out that he has been having a jurassic nightmare and it will be to late. No one has never been able to find the genes of a Oxford professor in the body of a billy goat and they never will, because God did not suppose, God created after his kind no missing link, the evolutionist is chasing the wind looking for something that is not there and will never find it because it simply is not there. The fact being that In the beginning God created kind after his kind and the evolutionist is with excuse because the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made. So the evolutionist can search all he wants till he is blue in the face, they will still suffer from the evolutionary delusion.

And that was 203 words of utterly empty post by Billy/Puritan/Christian Hippy. Well done, and thanks for being such a fine example of the evolution skeptics camp. Although the lack of AiG links and quote mines will cost you a few penalty points.

Isn't the term "missing link" a little bit misleading? It supposes that we're still looking for something that in fact we've already found (the piece of evidence that's supposedly still 'missing'). Didn't we in fact find the missing link long ago? This little guy is simply the latest example, is it not?

The fact being that In the beginning God created kind after his kind

Please define "kind".

So the evolutionist can search all he wants till he is blue in the face, they will still suffer from the evolutionary delusion.

Yawn

By the way, what is an "evolutionist" ?????????

No one has never been able to find the genes of a Oxford professor in the body of a billy goat

Indeed. It was a nanny goat, or at least that is what CS Lewis claimed.

That's not the missing link. Andy McIntosh's friend Wilber-Smith or whatever his name was is the missing link. That old fossil was quite well preserved, hell in the lecture I endured for over an hour of my life at someone's urging here (who is no longer around or using a moniker in drag) he seemed like he been preserving himself that day starting before breakfast. I wouldn't compare him to a lemur. More like a ferret.

No one wants to join my cult then. Seems like a foolproof plan if you ask me.

GV

Helio and MJarcus: You've both got it wrong. Do neither of you realize that in order to proove evolution is correct we should have crocoducks ???:

Sounds like a crock to me. However, all is not lost. American food scientists are working on growing an organism that's a cross between a fish and a potato. This will be a way to market fish and chips to Brits when all of the oceans have been fished dry. I've noticed that the EU will or is considering removing all its restrictions on limits on fishing in European waters and will leave it to local management. It recognizes that it has failed. I'll bet that will spell the eventual the end of fish for Europe.

The Christian Hippy AKA The Puritan is one scary dude. I hope he's not in the teaching profession or anything lol. Basically I hope he doesn't have any access to the minds of any young people who could conceivably swallow any of the complete rubbish he comes off with....

ps: Can I nominate The Christian Hippy for most ridiculously missnamed poster of the year? :-)

I think thoughtful caution would be advisable in the evaluation of 'Ida'. In recent times, 'discoveries' that were initially given banner headlines on page 1 have subsequently been modified and reported at the foot of column 12 on page 27!

Some might wish this find to deal a 'death blow' to the Biblical position on creation, but I predict those of us who hold it will be around - live and kicking - for a long time yet!

The question could justifiably be asked - Just what is a story like this doing on a moral and ethical blog? Of course, the reason is that what we believe about human origins affects how we view life in general. The issue of Creation / Evolution is therefore of much wider import than the assessment of a recently uncovered fossil.

It is my contention that evolutionary thinking has done incalculable damage to western society, proposing - as it does - that we came from nothing, are here for no reason, and are headed nowhere. Surely a philosophy of despair, if ever there was one!

Thankfully, there is an alternative, that stands examination both scientifically, philosophically and personally.

"In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth."

It is my contention that evolutionary thinking has done incalculable damage to western society, proposing - as it does - that we came from nothing, are here for no reason, and are headed nowhere. Surely a philosophy of despair, if ever there was one!

You seem to be completely confused with Atheism and science pastor philip ???????

There are many many scientists who are pioneers in evolutionary theory (mainstream science) but who are also Christians. for example, Kenneth Miller, Francis Collins, Karl Giberson, John Polkinghorne, even our very own Jocelyn Bell, to name but a few. Science is not Atheism.

Peter, Phil is not confused; just lying and being insufferably arrogant. I *am* an atheist, and I find plenty of meaning in my life; I don't exist to satisfy the whim of some imaginary space pixie; I'm here with you guys and everyone else, so let's see what we can do with this place. It's not a philosophy of despair, but of liberation. Liberation from the superstitions of complete tubes like Phil, who have the spectacular arrogance to think that they have the right to speak on behalf of whatever "explanation" lies behind our marvellous universe.

Helio,

'Seeing what we can do with this place' doesn't seem to extend to giving respect to those with whom you disagree! Seems to me we should be able to engage in civilised debate without descending to name-calling.

Anyway, the point I was trying to make was that the theory of evolution leads to a particular worldview, but some seem unwilling to follow their reasonig to its logical conclusion.

The Biblical view not only fits with the world we see around us, it also addresses what we are as individuals - sinners in need of a Saviour.

"Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners."

The Biblical view not only fits with the world we see around us

In what way ?

"..it's claimed that this fossil, nicknamed 'Ida', is a significant transitional form -- in fact, the missing link and, thus, our earliest ancestor. Read the key research paper making that claim here."

Beg pardon, it says exactly the opposite:-

"Note that Darwinius masillae, and adapoids contemporary with early tarsioids, could represent a stem group from which later anthropoid primates evolved, but we are not advocating this here, nor do we consider either Darwinius or adapoids to be anthropoids"

Couldn't be more clear - it could be, but they (a) don't think so and (b) aren't claiming it. Come one, William, put some effort in :)

Whilst I do not take the Biblical account of creation literally (how can you have a 24 hour 'day' without the sun?) I think it gives a correct general overview of the stages of the creation of the universe (definite beginning, ie Big Bang; creation of stars/galaxies (heavens) and the earth; creation of life on earth in order of plant, animals and man (which agrees with evolution). In my view, the primary reason for the Genesis chapters is to show us we have a relationship with God which has been broken, and needs to be fixed, rather than treating it as a scientific textbook. People often do not realise that many church fathers over the centuries have not taken Genesis literally, it is not a new phenomenom in the 21st century. Whilst I have problems with the scientific validity of evolutionary theory, I do not have a problem if it turns out to be true (it doesnt, after all, explain how life 'began' in the first place, just how it developed once it did). I would recommend a book by John Lennox called ' God's Undertaker ' which highlights some of the issues involved in this debate, though I suspect this will never end as some people seem to be simply unwilling to even consider the possibility of the existence of God.

Peter

"how can you have a 24 hour 'day' without the sun?"
That's your objection? Watch Red Dwarf, or any other sci fi set in space, they seem to have no problem.

Yeah, but they have stars. Days 1-3 don't (-:

And the ancients didn't think of the earth travelling through space, or twenty four hour days. The day was measured by the movement of heavenly bodies. That's just what a day was.

GV

Actually, a day is one rotation of the earth, which was created at the beginning - the sun, moon and stars came on day 4. While stars may be helpful to observers in calculating time, since God wouldn't need it, and man wasn't created until after both the earth AND the sun and stars, there is no problem.

As for needing the sun to provide light, the bible says that in the NEW earth, there won't be a need for a sun, as God will be all the light needed.

There is this barmy notion that many biblical beliefs were possible because people didn't know how the world works. As with the virgin birth - which was remarkable solely BECAUSE everyone knew it was contrary to what was scientifically possible - so with Genesis. Whatever the ancients knew about the motions of the heavens (and it's almost certainly more than most of us believe), they surely no-one is contending they didn't know that the light came from the sun, or that the concept of a day is normally entirely intertwined with the sun? If someone superstitious and ignorant was composing Genesis, they would be well aware that it would look daft to say that light came from anything other than sun, moon and stars. They were said to be created on day 4 for a reason - either because it's true, or to deliberately look ignorant of science even of the day, or for some other reason I can't conceive of.

Edwin
The issue is - what would the original readers have taken the text to mean? (What's the context, in other words). You are assuming that the ancients understood that the earth revolved, and they did not. Nor is there any indication that Genesis chapter One is trying to correct their notions about time.
I'm an evangelical, so I believe that God *could* have taught astronomy in Gen 1. But *did* he? There's no evidence that he did.
I wouldn't use Revelation, as it is much too metaphorical. But you don't need to. In one Egyptian myth, light was created before the sun. The ancients could (rather surprisingly) conceive of light without a source. You are quite right - the ancients weren't stupid, and could use very sophisticated imagery. (I think they also had a deeper understanding of human nature. We know more about oursleves, but understand less. But that's a different topic.)
The question is - could the ancients conceive of measured time without the movement of the heavenly bodies. *We* might think of days as the measured moments on a digital clock, or as one revolution of a planet. But an ancient Israelite could not have made any sense of that notion. The would have defined a day as sunset to sunset. Genesis does not speculate *at all* about the causal mechanisms behind the movement of the Sun. (Unlike Egyptian mythology, which has Re passing in his chariot and so forth.)
The danger is that, in an effort to defend the integrity of Genesis 1, you end up implying that it was written for our age, and not the age that first read the text. Of course, we want to say that it was written for every age. So we do need to take these interpretative issues quite seriously.
I suppose I'm objecting to the Seven Day Creationist assumption that ancient readers would have taken the seven days literally and only modern science has forcwed a re-read. That is not at all obvious. On interpretive/Scriptural grounds *alone* I think Genesis 1 was not giving historical information about the time it took God to make Earth.
I believe in the Virgin Birth, the Resurrection, Hell, the Incarnation, miracles, the Atonement, the inspiration and accuracy of the Bible, justifcation by grace alone through faith alone. I even believe in a literal Adam and Eve. All those "crazy" beliefs that skeptics dismiss as myths. And if God had wanted to make the world "as is" 8000 - 10000 years ago he could have. I just don't think that scripture teaches that he did.
GV

Edwin - actually Genesis specifically says ' and there was morning and evening..." at the end of each 'day', which only makes sense if the sun already existed and was shining its light on the earth. If you are going to take Genesis literally, you have to explain it in straight forward ways (the NEW earth hasn't been created yet so that is irrelevant).

Peter

Good point.

Peter,

The New Earth is relevant in that it shows the possibility of scripture teaching about light, and days, when there is no sun.

There being an evening without there being a sun is no less possible than there being light without there being a sun. Back to Red Dwarf - the sentence "Lister had LAST NIGHT'S curry for breakfast THIS MORNING" makes sense even though they are nowhere near the sun, because they have light from another source. So, whether it's true or not, there is no logical inconsistency in believing at least this part of the Genesis story to be true - the point I was answering.

Graham,

"You are assuming that the ancients understood that the earth revolved"

Where do I assume this? What the original readers MAY have understood was what it says - a day, 24 hours, during which there were roughly similar periods of darkness - evening - and light - daytime. They would NOT have understood it to be saying anything about the movement of the sun at this point for the very reason that Genesis explicitly states that light came 3 days before the sun. They also probably wouldn't have understood it to be anything about the earth's rotation and, of course, it may not have been - perhaps the earth wasn't yet rotating. My point in mentioning that was to respond to the claim that the concept of a day related to the heavenly bodies, when it only responds to the earth - not that the Hebrews believed this. God would, of course, be well capable of keeping time without the sun, earth or anything else.

As for whether the ancient hebrews could conceive of time as anything other than the movement of the heavenlies - the earliest known water clocks date to somewhere in the middle of the 2nd millenium BC, sometime around the events of the Exodus. We don't know for sure how much earlier they may have existed, but presumably the CONCEPT of time existing (and measured) independently of the movement of the heavens predates even the oral tradition of Genesis, so they would of course be able to conceive of it.

Okay, a few refinements and clarifications.

A "day" was sunup/sunset to sunup/sunset. Or morning to morning, evening to evening. And my point is that if they defined days, mornings and evenings by the movement of the sun and the heavenly bodies, then they would have immediately known that the first three days were not literal. The seventh day has no evening, (so God is still resting). If Days 1-3 and Day 7 are not literal, then Days 4-6 are not literal. So Genesis One pictures God as a workman. He builds his own Temple over six days, then rests.
It is poetic language, not literal description. You have to twist and turn the text all sorts of directions, and make additional assumptions to get 7 24hour days. What mechanism explains the light and darkness of the first three days? Then on day four sun-rise to sun-rise? Are we also to take it that the reason God doesn't work at night is because it was dark, and that he really needed a rest for a day due to his diligence? Or is it simpler to take the text as a picture of God as a diligent workman building his own Temple and resting in it?
When I say "no temporal change without heavenly bodies", I mean something like - "the sun functioned as the big standard clock in the sky". Only the movement of the heavenly bodies gave you standard equal temporal intervals.
I'm certainly not aware of nomadic societies 1st -2nd Millenium BC with sundials or water clocks! Which in any case, divided up the day. The average community did not have access to waterclocks and the like. And even for the priestly/noble classes it was the days and seasons that reliably and continually marked out time. It was difficult to mass produce a standard water clock or candle! In Jewish Law, well into the Midddle Ages, a day is Sunset to Sunset. It was not defined by units of time measured by a device.
Back to Genesis One. Obviously there were not clocks prior to humans. So what marked out time in days 1-3? What was the measureable change? What on earth can morning and evening *refer* to if the sun is not rising and setting? I can flick a light on and off at twelve hour intervals, (set by a water clock if you like). But that doesn't quite capture the meaning of "morning" and "evening".
Lister (was he the cat or the hologram?)might label "waking" as "morning" and sleeping as "night". But that is not what we mean by the terms, never mind what the text of Genesis One means. I doubt it is what Lister means by the terms either. He's just imaging life in terms of his time on earth.
We need to be very careful when we draw scientific inferences from the Bible. We run into significant difficulties with many texts. Take one example, texts that talk about pregnancy. This is described as an act of God - but the means? God curdled us like milk in our mother's womb (Job) or knit us together(Psalm 139). There are countless other examples. When we say that the Israelites did not think scientifically, we just mean that they did not think in terms of laws, or to describe the world in terms of particles that can be described by mathematical equations.
That does not mean that they resorted to myth. Unlike their neighbours, the Israelites did not "personify" aspects of nature with gods. However, like their neighbours, they did explain nature in terms of purpose and function. The sun functioned to give light and heat and time. The rain functioned to allow animals to drink and plants to grow. That is what they were "for". Therefore the world had a reliable predictable pattern. You did not expect bodies of water to part, or axe-heads to float.
But in any case, I'm simply arguing that the "Young Earth Creationist"
reading is not the only obvious interpretation of Genesis One. There are significant difficulties with that reading that have nothing to do with science. I think that it misses the point, but not that it's impossible to take the text that way.

GV

"my point is that if they defined days, mornings and evenings by the movement of the sun and the heavenly bodies, then they would have immediately known that the first three days were not literal"
Why? You have already stated this, but not given evidence. I'll give mine that they WERE intended literally.
The word Yom elsewhere always means a literal day.
If there are millions of years, we have God calling death and pain 'Very Good', and remove the fall as its cause.
Jesus - Mark 10:6 - from the BEGINNING of creation he made them male and female. Not after a few billion years.
4th commandment - For in six days... If the premise is false, surely we don't have to keep the rule?
The very fact that evening and morning are mentioned make it clear it is a literal day, even though the sun did not exist for the first 3 of them.
All major ancient rabbinical traditions accept the days as literal - the Talmud even tries to split it down into hours. You claim the people would not have done so - can you point to the time (and evidence) when this changed in the Jewish traditions?

"What mechanism explains the light and darkness of the first three days?"
That God said 'let there be light.' It may have been directly from him - as it will be in the New Earth (if that's not also figurative), or there may have been a mechanism. You seem to be saying 'how could God have provided light without the sun' which seems a little odd if God is omnipotent.

"Are we also to take it that the reason God doesn't work at night is because it was dark, and that he really needed a rest for a day due to his diligence?" No, like the sabbath idea, he was establishing a pattern for man (this is my understanding, it's not explicit, but your mocking tone is not warranted, when the answer is so simple).

"Or is it simpler to take the text as a picture of God as a diligent workman building his own Temple and resting in it? " Not sure if it's simpler - is this an appeal to Occam's Razor? Because, as I say, this is not the way that other bible writers, Jesus or the early rabbis appear to have taken it, so while it may be simple, it's not necessarily true. That said, I would have thought the simplest reading of any text is always the literal one, so if it's simplicity you're after...

"When I say "no temporal change without heavenly bodies", I mean something like - "the sun functioned as the big standard clock in the sky". Only the movement of the heavenly bodies gave you standard equal temporal intervals." Unless of course God is able to measure time without needing any sort of clock.

"And even for the priestly/noble classes it was the days and seasons that reliably and continually marked out time. It was difficult to mass produce a standard water clock or candle! In Jewish Law, well into the Midddle Ages, a day is Sunset to Sunset. It was not defined by units of time measured by a device."
Here, I suspect, we hit the slippery slope. When the sun stood still on Joshua's long day, did an extra day pass, or not? If so, then there must have been time more objective than just whether the sun went up and down. If not, then what does it mean to talk about it being a longer day? Or did this not actually happen - was it also figurative? If so, how do you choose what to dismiss?

"We need to be very careful when we draw scientific inferences from the Bible."
I absolutely agree. Unless scripture is clear, we shouldn't assume we understand a point being made. That is, unless the Bible explicitly says that something happened in 6 days, and reiterates it throughout both the old and new testament, basing a number of teachings on it. In that case, it's probably OK. If it says that death entered through the sin of one man, we can assume that death didn't exist before that, especially if Jesus himself refers to that man and his family to justify his teachings.

"So what marked out time in days 1-3? What was the measureable change?"
the first light that God created went away


"What on earth can morning and evening *refer* to if the sun is not rising and setting?"
"God called the light 'day,' and the darkness he called 'night.'"

"Lister (was he the cat or the hologram?)might label "waking" as "morning" and sleeping as "night". But that is not what we mean by the terms, never mind what the text of Genesis One means."
Lister was the space bum. And as for what the text of Genesis means...
"God called the light 'day,' and the darkness he called 'night.'" There was no sun, just the light which preceded it. God called it day. What do YOU think it means, and what is the evidence we shouldn't take it as written?

"But in any case, I'm simply arguing that the "Young Earth Creationist"
reading is not the only obvious interpretation of Genesis One. There are significant difficulties with that reading that have nothing to do with science."
Why then was it not until long geological ages began to be postulated that more than a handful of people questioned the literal interpretation? It was held by the rabbis, most of the church fathers, the leaders of the reformation, and virtually any other group who thought about it until it became uncool to do so.

Edwin

Lister ended up on Coronation Street! Who'd have thought it.

I think we should take Genesis "as written!" And it was not written as a history of the Creation, but as a description of God, the power of God's word, the Earth's relationship to God, mans place in creation and as a polemic against idolatry.

The Israelites read against the background of ancient cosmology and their everyday experience of the world. A ggod description of ancient cosmology can be found here



and here



God *could* have corrected ancient concpetions of the Earth Genesis 1. The question is *did* he? Or does Genesis 1 have a different purpose? So far as I can see Genesis 1 does not make any sense if we take it literally. Day 4 has been a perpetual problem for interpreters, and efforts to save Days 1-3 as literal seem forced. Furthermore, there is no section of historical narrative that reads like Genesis 1.
Augustine followed Origen due to difficulties on the Fourth Day. Celsus, a pagan philosopher, mocked the Genesis creation account as days 1 and 4 do not cohere. Justin Martyr (Dialogue with Tryho ch.81) seems to take days in Genesis 1-3 as referring to 1000 year periods. Philo took Genesis 1 as an allegory (but unlike Augustine, this was for philosophical reasons. Augustine's reasons were exegetical.)
We don't know what the early Rabbis thought, and the mediaeval Rabbis (quoted by "Answers in Genesis") aren't much help as they accepted Ptolemaic cosmology very much at odds with the cosmologies of the first recipients of the text. In any case Maimonides was not a literalist.

As for the plain meaning of the word "day". The ordinary person just experienced a day in terms of the Suns movement. Like I said Jewish law defined day as sunset to sunset. And there is more to a "day", and "morning" and an "evening" than switching a light on and off. Indeed Genesis One itself says that the Sun was "for days". It's purpose was to mark out days.
And what was that "light" doing when the Earth went dark? Where did it go in the mind of the first reader? They did not have Ptolemy to suggest that the world was a spere that revolved. The light in Gen 1 isn't the light of a star and there is nothing in the text to suggest that it functioned as a Sun until God made the Sun. Why would God do that in any case?
But if the Sun, Moon and Stars are held back until Day Four to repudiate myths about Re (eg. YHWH gives light, not Re), and not to teach the order of creation, then the text of Genesis 1 makes more sense.

My own view is outlined here


It makes much more sense of the text to my mind. I'm just trying to point out that a "24-7" reading of Genesis is not as obvious as many Young Earthers think, and that the problems for such a reading originate in the text itself, are ancient, and have nothing to do with science.

GV

It also needs to be said that archaeology has helped our understanding of ancient texts tremendously. The Reformers did not have access to the information that modern scholars do.
Furthermore, the discovery of geological layers did not cause any crisis at all for evangelicals who rejected Flood Geology. There is no 17th Century equivalent of Ken Ham or Answers in Genesis. Differing interpetations caused no controversy. So perhaps I could argue that Yound Earth Creationism (of the AiG type) is a product of the 1960's & 1970s counterculture, and the Culture Wars of the 1980s.
So it is not as simple as saying that this is all a reinterpretation forced by modern science. Although I do have to say you seem much more relaxed about this than a lot of Young Earth enthusiasts. I haven't been accused of endangering the gospel. You just seem to believe that your interpretation is true. I don't sense any "moral panic" about the power of secularism or liberal theology motivating your interpretation.
So you're a very nice person to discuss this with.

GV

One more thing - Rabbinic Midrash was an expansion on the text, a work of imagination, and was quite often deliberately fictive. Take an example from the Genesis rabbah

"He thought to Himself, We should not create her beginning with the head, so that she be not frivolous, nor from the eye, that she be not a starer, nor from the ear, that she be not an eavesdropper..."

The rabbi imagines what God might have thought to understand the text. He does not mean that God actually went through this thought process. The AiG references to Talmud just ignore the nature of Midrash. So references to hours, and what happened in certain hours in Midrash are not like Archbishop Usher trying to work out the age of the Earth. These are meant to be insightful fictions.

GV

Graham,

You made me smile. I wish I was as nice in reality as I apparently come across to you here, but I'm working on it, and so's God (more importantly).

I have no respect for the Talmud for theology, by the way, just mentioned it as one place showing that Genesis could be taken literally, and time understood without having to reference the sun.

"Although I do have to say you seem much more relaxed about this than a lot of Young Earth enthusiasts. I haven't been accused of endangering the gospel. You just seem to believe that your interpretation is true. I don't sense any "moral panic" about the power of secularism or liberal theology motivating your interpretation."
Well, I didn't say it, because it's so OBVIOUS. You, and anyone else who disagrees with me, are CLEARLY agents of SATAN. You may not REALISE that you are serving the DARK ONE HIMSELF, but all our children are at RISK OF HELL unless you at once REPENT of your LIBERAL APOLOGETICS.

Nah. If for no other reason than who the hell am I to judge, and how much have I done to turn people off the gospel, I've no room to be like that to any one.

There are many things much more critical to the gospel, and I have no moral panic, because God's in charge, and we can't entirely thwart him no matter what we do - if I thought my bad behaviour and thoughts could actually damn someone, I'd weep until I wore out my tear ducts.

I have two main issues with people rejecting it as history.
1. Many who do don't bother to think about it, research, try to understand, they just say 'well science says so' - and by science, they mean the likes of the press conference on the lemur fossil, not even the science paper. That's why I was astonished when Will claimed the science paper made the claim of missing link, since he had a link to it but presumably either (a) didn't understand it (I mean, this is William Crawley, so it's not that; (b) didn't read it (possible, he's a busy man, but then why blog on it or (c) did it deliberately (in which case, I'm not sure what agenda he's pushing or why, but I wish he'd stop, since he's a ±«Óãtv presenter). I feel this way about anyone who doesn't bother to use their brains - "Think like a man (or woman)" - and just accepts Christianity because they were born into it, though. Give me a thinking atheist to chat to any day (though the sky pixie or chocolate teapot arguments do make me despair for atheism too).

2. What I've said, about so many other passages referring to it (and the flood) as though they believed it was true, and the impact it has on the nature of God if it's not. In brief:-
God thinks a world of death, decay and agony is very good. He doesn't permit it because it's a necessary condition for us (and the angels) to have free will, but because he actually likes it. C.S. Lewis' take on the Problem of Pain is out the window, and I haven't heard an alternative solution suggested by those who believe that this IS in fact the God we worship. I would love to hear your thoughts (and those of others, Christian or otherwise).

ED
You need to get used to the Flying Spaghetti Monster Arguments around here. More's the pity.
Animal Suffering bothers me a lot less than it probably should. Difficult to get worked up over the death of a Big Mac. Bit short on time this morning, but I'll get back to you on this on Monday.
I did see Lister on Coronation Street, didn't I?

GV

Great, chaps - no moral panic. Which might give you some insight into why, as an ex-evangelical, I have absolutely NO problem in being an atheist, even if it turns out that that god does exist after all. If god exists, the devil doesn't; we don't *need* saved; Jesus was still just a man, and we're descended from chimps. What's to panic about? We're here for the ride, and no-one tells us what to think - not even the gods. We work that out for ourselves and among ourselves.

-H

helio

You should run up a set of bangles, WWHD, What Would Helio Do?, or We Want High Definition. Or maybe WWTFSMD? As an ex-evangelical you should be familiar with the profit margin on cheap tack like this :-)

"Or maybe WWTFSMD?"

Sorry petermorrow, Pastafarianism is a hugely more dynamic and energetic religion than competitors in the religious industry, like christianity. We got there way ahead on exploiting that commercial opportunity, including the bumper stickers, emblems, etc:



But fear not, you are welcome to join us, and worship His noodly goodness. Pastafarianism comes with a 30-day "Your old religion will happily take you back if you don't like us" guarantee. You don't even have to believe in Him. I'm a strong atheist and devout Pastafarian, there is no contradiction in that at all.

Peter,

You disappoint me. Not just the exploitation of the credulous, but the felt need to offer a 30 day religion back guarantee. I mean why would I think I couldn't get out of the clutches of the great meat ball in the sky. Why the need to reassure me with a get out clause? Is his spaghetti grip so great that once pastasised forever pestoed? And what of day 31, where does that leave me, in the parmesan? I mean, what is the cry of the devoted then, "hard cheese"? I expected more, but you're just, it seems, offering another dead old religion, same old same-o. And all that trouble and I don't even get to believe in him.

You see, you'll never sell snake oil like a Christian!



You really should check out their Gold Frankincense and Myrrh store (barf-a-rama), I think it means 'The gold is all ours'! (or theirs, depending on how you look at it.)


Helio

I'll deal with your a-satanism later!

Graham,

While I stopped watching Corrie a long time ago, yes, Lister (Craig Charles) is in it now. They actually used it in the new episodes of Red Dwarf made for Dave this year.

Also short on time, hope you're having / had a great weekend (depending when you read this).

Petermorrow,

You were right to be disappointed. That was a very, very poor piece of witnessing for the FSM in my previous post. I almost made it sound as if religion is just about exploiting the gullible. Good grief.

However, I previously made a more extensive effort to enlighten people about the Good News of His noodly appendages. If you care for some distictly un-intellectual reading for ~25 minutes, then have a look at the piece I wrote about Pastafariansim for Humani magazine, also published online here:

Peter

Thank you for my very own and personal copy of the Book of Monster by the apostle Klaver. I will read it all in due course and even meditate upon it if you feel it would be helpful in drawing me nearer to pasta boy but I have a couple of questions already:

At the end of the 3rd paragraph (verses would really help you know) The Book of Monster says, "meet (the monster) that created the earth, life on earth, and the universe around it: the Flying Spaghetti Monster."

And then in paragraph 5 we read, "After the FSM created the universe, he created life on earth."

Now it seems to me that this is a contradiction. If I read paragraph 3 literally, earth, life on earth, universe then it is a clear contradiction with the sequence with paragraph 5, which is, universe then life on earth. Furthermore there is no mention of the creation of the earth at all in paragraph 5 which only adds to the confusion leaving us with the difficulty that life on earth was created without there even being an earth at all. How can I take this seriously?

Peter, my dear teacher of the monster who dwells in tomato sauce I am happy to give further thought to your most nutritious of religions but I find I cannot get past(a) these first few paragraphs and the contradictions concern me deeply and vex my soul. If you could in your wisdom assist me in my seeking after garlic nirvana I would be greatly numbled, noodled, nibbled, hubbled, hummed, hoodled, humbl...

Hell petermorrow,

I'm glad you are obviously taking it serious and doing some very careful reading. But there is no reason to question the truthfulness of the Gospel of the FSM. The third paragraph doesn't state that it represents a time order as in 'After the the first 6 pints, the FSM created birds, after another six-pack he made tax lawyers and a donkey or two' etc. There is no reason to have any less strong faith in Him.

Even if you did find some real contradictions, don't let that make you run off to any of those silly parody alternative faiths. The Gospel of the FSM states near its beginning that the Gospel contains many errors. These have been put in to test the readers faith in Him.

Peter

Thank you for your prompt response. I am concerned though that you think I am hell bound. If I were to turn in earnest and sincere repentance to the meatball Monster might there be hope for me?

And now again to the gospel of the FSM.

You say "The Gospel of the FSM states near its beginning that the Gospel contains many errors." I can find no such reference, perhaps you are reading from the Apocryphal Book of the Monster, or perhaps you have received some recent revelation, maybe in the form of alphabet pasta shapes, would I have access to that before or after I became a disciple, or are you his only oracle?

What I notice it does say is, "The Flying Spaghetti Monster probably created the whole universe when He sneezed during a moment of alcoholic intoxication. This first fact...", well is it a fact or not, or is it probably a fact and if so, what is the degree of factual probability? The last thing I would want to do is 'just believe', that would probably be a bad thing to do.

You say too that it doesn't give sequence e.g. made 'a donkey or two'. But, things like these are critical and I really need to know which it is, one donkey or two donkeys could be crucial, I have known people's faith to stand or fall on such a problem. Honestly if it's only one donkey we're in trouble!

Hello petermorrow,

I think you are confusing the little piece I wrote with the actual Gospel of the FSM? See



for the real word of our great Pastafarian prophet, Bobby Henderson. I'm merely one of the humble disciples of the FSM.

And I certainly don't think you're hell-bound. Please read on on the web page I wrote, a stale pint of beer is the worst of your fears. Pastafarianism is a very benign faith. And it's no use expressing your repentence to the FSM to avoid the stale beer. The FSM certainbly is merciful, but doesn't think listening to people is very interesting. Which certainly has its good sides, see lateron on the web page.

Oh, I think it must be the special characters again, that url doesn't work. :( Maybe Barnes & Noble will work?

"What I notice it does say is, "The Flying Spaghetti Monster probably created the whole universe when He sneezed during a moment of alcoholic intoxication. This first fact...", well is it a fact or not, or is it probably a fact and if so, what is the degree of factual probability?"

Probably somewhere along the lines of Dawkins Selfish Gene. Chapter 1 - "Today the theory of evolution is about as much open to doubt as the theory that the earth goes round the sun". Then go to chapter two, where he outlines the actual evidence for the origins of life itself - the survival of the stable as he puts it. Count the number of 'probably', 'must have', 'scientists believe' and the like. See if he actually has evidence even for the things he doesn't admit to being pure hypothesis (e.g. 'at some point a particularly remarkable molecule was formed by accident').

Oh, hang on, sorry, Dawkins' one is science isn't it - hypothesis, design, experiment, results, conclusion. Not religion. Science. I forgot. It's as well-established by experiment as the theory that the earth goes round the sun.

Apart from this, of course - Chapter 2 of the Selfish Gene:-
"The account of the origin of life I shall give is necessarily speculative; by definition, no-one was around to see what happened...The account I shall give is probably not too far from the truth"
Doesn't that also apply to the theory of evolution generally? I'm unaware of anyone ever having observed any kind mutating into another kind. I've heard a lot of interesting Just So stories, but never seen it actually demonstrated.

So, on what does Dawkins base his calculation of probability of proximity to 'the truth'? And isn't it at least a bit more open to doubt than the solar orbit of the earth?

Hello Edwin,

Are you aware that you are comparing apples to oranges? Evolution is concerned with how life changes over time, not how it first came about from non-living matter (that is the area of abiogenesis). Although I must admit that distiction is not made all that clearly in The Selfish Gene. But nonetheless, you are mixing things up rather badly.

Actually, it's Dawkins who mixed them up. "Should we then call the original replicators 'living'? Who cares?" - Chapter 2, The Selfish Gene. Dawkins apparently believes that natural selection also applies to the pre-cell 'mutations', in fact that there's no point defining life, since the same theory applies throughout.

That said, I did make the point that they were different, even if Dawkins doesn't. Hence "Doesn't that also apply to the theory of evolution generally?" Dawkins doesn't admit that one, but many of the critical parts of evolution (addition of information rather than loss, change from one kind to another) are also not proven and have never been observed. It is also full of 'probably' and 'must have' and just so stories. How anyone can claim it to be about as open to doubt as that the earth orbits the sun is beyond me.

However, it was Dawkins technique - specifically in the Selfish Gene - I was mainly discussing. Peter's point about whether the FSM's act was a fact or just some undefined degree of probable made me think of Dawkins - particularly chapter two of the Selfish Gene, where something is mentioned as possible or probable, then inexplicably becomes an unassailable premise to the next argument. It's one of his most endearing techniques, and he uses it a lot. Cf his Meme Theory.

Hello Edwin,

The evolution debate is of course not new to this blog. You wrote

"many of the critical parts of evolution (addition of information rather than loss, change from one kind to another) are also not proven and have never been observed."

Let me quote from another post below, where one of the posters here gave examples of mutations that have been observed to add useful functionality. I haven't looked up the papers cited there myself, but it sounds like what is said there contradicts what you wrote.

greets,
Peter

--------------------------

OK, you want to see more genetic information? Try these, from good old Belfast:
Pendleton et al. Mutations in ANKH cause chondrocalcinosis. Am J Hum Genet. 2002 Oct;71(4):933-40.

Summary (for the relevant piece of the argument): a mutation in the ANKH gene results in a new ATG start codon, which adds 4 amino acids to the N terminus of the gene. This results in a dramatic increase in the function of the protein. Good work done here in Belfast. Information added to a gene.

Another one from Belfast:
Hughes et al. Mutations in TNFRSF11A, affecting the signal peptide of RANK, cause familial expansile osteolysis.
Nat Genet. 2000 Jan;24(1):45-8.

Summary: Tandem duplications cause ADDITION of amino acids within the signal peptide encoding region of the TNFRSF11A gene, resulting in a hyper-activated protein. Information added to a gene.

There are zillions more examples - you can use PubMed, yes? I think these papers are both freely available for you.

"Pendleton et al. Mutations in ANKH cause chondrocalcinosis. Am J Hum Genet. 2002 Oct;71(4):933-40."

Did the scientists observe the duplication and mutation happening in nature? Or did they ASSUME that this had happened as an explanation of observed differences? Possibly they 'recreated' it in the lab to show it COULD have happened in nature - "Reconstruction of each mutation in a full-length ANK expression construct followed by in vitro tissue culture assays". The fact that a designer can conceive of it, and then cause it to happen in a lab, is not exactly evidence of it happening by accident in nature.

"Hughes et al. Mutations in TNFRSF11A"
"In the Northern Irish and American FEO families, identical tandem duplication of bases 84-101 (84dup18; 603499.0001) in exon 1 of the TNFRSF11A gene was found in all affected individuals tested. An identical 84dup18 duplication was found in the DNA of an affected member in the German family."
Notice. Was found. There needs to be evidence that the information was missing and is now present in order to show duplication, rather than assume it.

Anyway, I'm not an expert, but there is certainly more doubt over this than over whether the earth orbits the sun, which was the point I made.

Hello Edwin

I'll part agree, part disagree with you.

I think you're stretching the definition of observing a bit. As we can't see dna, proteins etc with our eyes, we won't ever look at some mouse in nature and see a change in its dna occurring. It necessarily involves lab equipment to test before and after. But we can't see or hear gravity either. Yet most wouldn't be bothered at all to look at an apple falling and saying they see gravity in action. When you could formally make the case that they only see the inferred effect of gravity. Somehow such technicalities are usually brought up by the evolution-skeptical crowd only when it comes to evolution. But if you want to stick to the formal point of view, then fine, as I don't think word definition discussions make for the most interesting discussions.

I'll agree with you more when you say

"Anyway, I'm not an expert, but there is certainly more doubt over this than over whether the earth orbits the sun, which was the point I made."

I'm not the expert either, but I wouldn't rank the details of abiogenesis on an equal certainty footing with heliocentrism either.

Edwin, how clear would you like it to be? These mutations do not occur in the general population, and each one goes back to a founder mutation in the recent past. These genes have been sequenced in thousands of individuals, and we know very precisely the haplotype background upon which each one occurred. We also see tandem duplications (adding information) and deletions (subtracting information) happening frequently in humans, and these provide quite a large degree of the variation in gene expression and phenotype that we see in the normal population - there is no "one consensus human genotype". For several reasons, deletions are more likely to be damaging than duplications, which is one reason for the increase in complexity in many lineages (although beware of over-interpreting this!). The "human genome" is a *population* phenomenon, and that genepool is dynamic, and shifts with selection and drift. There is not any debate about this, at least not in the scientific community. The debates in evolution revolve around modes, mechanisms, rates, locations, ecology, etc - i.e. the "theory of evolution" refers to HOW evolution occurs and has occurred. There is no debate about WHETHER evolution occurs or has occurred - that is a very solid and incontrovertible fact.