Re: Can Creation and Evolution be linked?

On Wed, 25 Jul 2007 11:33:01 -0700, snex <snex@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On Jul 25, 1:21 pm, r norman <r_s_norman@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Wed, 25 Jul 2007 10:22:34 -0700, snex <s...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Jul 24, 2:44 pm, Timberwoof <timberwoof.s...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
In article <Xns997783DB86C77GaryB...@xxxxxxxxxxx>,
Gary Bohn <gary.b...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

r norman <r_s_norman@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in
news:t7hca3dcsvpq6f6ff84u8c1f9uv0c3su2f@xxxxxxx:

On 24 Jul 2007 18:17:00 GMT, AC <mightymartia...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On Tue, 24 Jul 2007 17:05:41 -0000,
yourfriend...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx <yourfriend...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Why can't creation and evolution be linked. Why can they not be a
part of the same thing. Sure - there was Gods creation in the
beginning in which the seeds of life were laid down, which over
billions of years evolved to best adapt to there surroundings. How
do we know this was not God's plan? Because the man who wrote the
book of Genesis, who did not have the ability to understand what we
know today, says it is so?

If you want to believe that, that go ahead. But understand that it is
not science.

Of course it is not science. It is called religion. But faith can be
compatible with science as a very large number of Jewish and Christian
and Muslim scientists can attest.

Is their faith compatible, or are they just succesfully
compartmentalizing their science and their faith in different mental
containers?

As far as I am aware, those religious scientists do not consider their
belief system while running and analysing experiments. Of course I could
be quite wrong in this.

Many religious people consider creation stories to be myths. They may
speak to us on a deep psychological level about what it means to be
human., but they do not provide a literal, scientific explanation of how
the world was made.

the stories only became myths after the evidence indicated a literal
interpretation was wrong. up until that point, they were believed
literally. why do theists engage in such intellectually dishonest
behavior?

This is far too facile a comment, especially with the claim of
dishonest behavior. We are not talking about biblical literalists,
here, for whom the criticism may be true. Biblical literalism is not
the only thread of religious thought. Aquinas knew of the
discrepancies between a literal reading of scripture and the
knowledge of natural science at the time and argued that, the
observations of the real world are not falsified by the proper
interpretation of biblical text. Rashi and Maimonides a century or
two earlier made the same arguments. There are long traditions of
biblical interpretation in both Christianity and Judaism going back to
the origins of both religions. In the case of Judaism, the analysis
and interpretation (Talmud) go back in oral tradition to before the
works were codified, some two and a half millennia or so.

and yet, in every single case, the text is read literally UNTIL
science shows that literal reading to be wrong. aquinas, having no
knowledge of evolution or the great age of the earth, most certainly
took the claims of genesis literally. even the first geologists sought
to *demonstrate* the global flood using science because they took the
flood story literally. it is commendable that they honestly evaluated
the scientific evidence once it was discovered, but surely you can see
the problem in maintaining the divine inspiration of a book *no matter
what it says* merely because you can reinterpret it on a whim.

You think too little of the innumerable conscientious religious
believers who did and still do conduct science and who do not
recognize the problem you claim is so evident. Given no idea about
the universe, the biblical stories, make a useful starting point even
as you believe that they really are stories intended to inspire and
uplift and teach eternal moral truths rather than historical or
scientific fact. The early geologists may have been looking for a
flood but finding no evidence did not abandon either their science or
their faith. Even the phrase 'divine inspiration' has multiple
meanings. It does not necessarily mean 'written by the hand of God'.
Even the original poster who inquired about whether science and faith
can be reconciled wrote of 'the man who wrote the book of Genesis'.

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Non-Literal Literalism
    ... many Biblical literalists are only literalists where it doesn't ... there are scientists that are YEC's and there are scientists ... and biological evolution. ... a literal interpretation of these ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Non-Literal Literalism
    ... many Biblical literalists are only literalists where it doesn't ... overwhelming majority of scientists who work in these fields and are ... a literal interpretation of these ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Non-Literal Literalism
    ... many Biblical literalists are only literalists where it doesn't ... overwhelming majority of scientists who work in these fields and are ... a literal interpretation of these ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Wading into the deep end of the pool
    ... Intro to Naturalistic Evolution class? ... in any of these topics beyond a general enthusiam for science plus ... scientists a few centuries ago were European, ... clearly illustrated every time the literalists cannot agree on ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Can Creation and Evolution be linked?
    ... compatible with science as a very large number of Jewish and Christian ... We are not talking about biblical literalists, ... interpretation of biblical text. ...
    (talk.origins)