At 07:41 AM 1/17/00 -0500, George Murphy wrote:
>> The Bible doesn't talk about any details at all of the big bang.
>
> "Let there be light" - i.e., EM radiation.
OK, I stand corrected here. But what theologically can we derive from it
and why would you expect to learn from this that there was a 25% helium
abundances as you suggested earlier? As I noted, I wouldn't expect to
derive any helium info based on this, so I thought your question was kinda
off base.
>
>> Howver, it
>> does talk about at least one detail of the creation of life which has huge
>> consequences--that is, the land created living things!
>
> You will no doubt call this a quibble but the land doesn't "create"
>living things. God creates living things by having the land produce them
- i.e.,
>through the capabilities with which God has endowed it. There is a big
theological
>distinction here, the kind of thing that tends to get ignored if one is
just trying
>to read a series of events out of the text.
While you are absolutely correct that God endowed the land to produce the
critters, it was still the land that did it. Now where are we informed that
this was a one time gift to work only once and only on one planet. Nowhere
are we told that this gift had to work instantly. And in general no one
ever admits that there is a very strong case to be made that evolution is
both compatible with Scripture (and a non allegorical interpretation of it)
and is indicated by Scripture. This verse is really hard to interpret as
instant miracle, imo.
>
>> If the land did the
>> bringing forth, what exactly can that be other than evolution?
>
> OK, the land brought forth "vegetation, plants yielding seed, and fruit
trees
>bearing fruit in which is their seed, each according to its kind" before
there was
>any life in the sea or any animals on land. Not single cells but trees
&c. Then the
>waters brought forth all the sea animals and birds from the waters before
there were any
>land animals - which in turn were brought forth from the land, not from
any connection
>with life in the sea. There is no statement of any change in any of these
living things
>once they have been brought forth.
And no where is such a change ruled out. THis to me opens up the biggest
misreading of the Scripture that Christendom has fallen into. Genesis is
almost always read as implying that animals reproduce animals after their
kind and plants reproduce plants after their kind. They miss totally the
subject object relationship in those sentences. Indeed you missed it in
your quote in the first sentence above. The word 'each' is not in the
original. It is not in the old King James version. It is not in the NIV. It
is not in the Revised Standard. It is in the new KJ. That version, by
inserting the 'each' makes it sound more like this verse is talking about
the reproductive capabilities of the plants. It is a translator problem.
These statements have the "land produce animals after their kind," "the
land produce plants after their kind" and "the waters produce life after
their kind."
Absolutely NOWHERE IN SCRIPTURE CAN A VERSE BE FOUND THAT SAYS "ANIMALS
(SUBJECT) REPRODUCE(VERB) ANIMALS (OBJECT) AFTER THEIR KIND"
Christians have totally misread Genesis 1 in this regard as ruling out
evolution and it is the silliest thing around--making the Bible say
something it very clearly does not say.
& finally human beings are simply created with no
>indication (in the 1st creation account) of being "brought forth" from
anything.
> Is this an evolutionary picture? Not in anything like the sense in which
the
>word is used in modern biology. It's a picture of fully developed kinds
being made
>from the earth & waters separately.
I would make a correction. It is a picture of kinds being made from the
earth and waters separately. Whether they were fully developed is totally
another question that the Bible may address with its wording. Nahmanides says
"This is why Scripture says, 'tadshei ha'aretz' (let the earth put forth)
'deshe' (young plants), and it would not be correct usage to say ta'asiv
[for the word esev applies to mature products which produce seeds]. And
every young thing that grows from the earth is called deshe, even trees."
Ramban(Nachmanides), Commentary on the Torah, Transl. by Charles B. Chavel,
(New York: Shilo Publishing Co. 1971), p. 41
At the very least, this is apparently referring to developmentally immature
trees and not fully developed trees as you suggest above. While I won't
push it, one could, in light of modern knowledge use this to refer to
evolutionarily immature trees.
> Now of course you'll say that the order of events doesn't matter and that
what
>we have is some sort of simplified scientific version so that it "really"
is an
>evolutionary account. You ignore or explain away the parts that don't
fit. But you are
>simply reading a modern scientific understanding into Genesis, not out of
it.
At the very least, I am citing a Hebrew authority on what the meaning of
Genesis is.
> Nobody that I know of before the 19th century - including Nahmanides, who
you
>quoted earlier - found evolution here: Note his actual language, "He
decreed that there
>be among the products of the earth a force which grows and bears seed _so
that the
>species should exist forever_." (My emphasis added.) Species don't
"exist forever" in
>evolutionary theories.
I won't argue that Nahmanides wanted the stasis of species/kinds. That is
clear. However,
Nahmanides actually doesn't believe in the stasis of types and indeed
believes that they can change. He does, however believe that they shouldn't
be changed by man. He says,
"And He said that all this vegetation should be after its kind. This is the
basis of the prohibition of sowing mixed kinds of seeds, since he who sows
them works contrary to the power of the work of creation. I will yet
explain this [Lev. 19:19] with the help of God." Ramban(Nachmanides),
Commentary on the Torah, Transl. by Charles B. Chavel, (New York: Shilo
Publishing Co. 1971), p. 40
When we look at Lev. 19:19 we find:
19“‘Keep my decrees.
“‘Do not mate different kinds of animals.
“‘Do not plant your field with two kinds of seed.
“‘Do not wear clothing woven of two kinds of material.
This clearly DOESN't imply a belief in the constancy of species. ON the
contrary this statement is based upon the belief that they CAN be changed.
While I agree that at the same time this means that Nahmanides was not an
evolutionist in our sense of the word, the point is he didn't believe in
stasis of species.
(& the same is true for Gregory of Nyssa. While he like other
>fathers saw mediated creation here & while he had something that sound
evolutionary with
>his idea that humans had to first have a purely vegetative soul before
having an animal
>and then a rational one, that is his philosophical construction rather
than his reading
>of Genesis.)
Once again, I would argue that nowhere does the Bible say species exist
forever, or kinds exist forever or that animals have to reproduce after
their kind. While I won't argue about Nahmanides' belief in the ethical
need for the stasis of species, he and Gregory didn't get that from the Bible.
>
>> God didn't
>> create life directly which rules out special creation and it rules out
>> progressive creation as normally defined because it requires God act
>> directly. The only thing left is evolution. Rather than telling me what you
>> think of my ideas, why don't you tell me what else there is other than
>> evolution that can fit the creation of life by the land? That would be far
>> more useful than what you are doing.
>
> Of course I am not trying to argue for some alternative to evolution & I
think
>I've made my view of Genesis clear several times. (Whether you consider
that useful or
>not is another matter.) Genesis gives important theological statements
about God's
>creation of the world & relationship with it, including the very important
idea of
>mediated creation of life. Anyone understands this can then see that
Genesis does not
>_require_ that either "special creation", "progressive creation" or
evolution be held as
>a scientific theory, but that the idea of mediated creation provides an
important
>connection with doctrines of providence & an openness to evolutionary views.
And that is largely my point in this. For almost 200 years Christian
leaders have proclaimed to the rooftops that the Bible rules out evolution.
It has sent armies of believers off to fight against the dragon evolution.
YEt there in the bible is the very basis of evolution--that matter, not God
directly, created life. And there in the Bible is no statement of the
stasis of species--in fact, it clearly implies in Lev. 19:19 that the forms
can change.
>
>> >> PC doesn't generally acknowledge mediate creation.
>> >
>> > You lost me. PC? Political correctness. Pierre Curie?
>>
>> For goodness sake, progressive creation! This abbreviation has been used on
>> this list for a long time!
>
> Quite right, mea culpa. But having acknowledged my inexusable mental lapse,
>I'll point out that there's no reason at all why PC shouldn't involve
mediated creation.
>Once could easily picture God bringing forth new life forms from earth &
waters at
>critical points in earth history.
I owe you an apology here. I was a bit miffed when I wrote so please
forgive me for my rudeness there.
glenn
Foundation, Fall and Flood
Adam, Apes and Anthropology
http://www.flash.net/~mortongr/dmd.htm
Lots of information on creation/evolution
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon Jan 17 2000 - 20:33:24 EST