Tubal-Cain

HE, you mix metaphysics and science. The points I am arguing for all deal with the science and have nothing to do with metaphysics. Quite frankly, I disagree with your opinion on what you call "theistic-Darwinists" and I also disagree with the words of Provine and Monod. The very beliefs I hold show them to be false (not to mention the beliefs of countless other theistic evolutionists). I am quite able to discuss the science of evolution without discussing metaphysics. If you think it cannot be done then that is your problem. At every turn it has been you who has pushed godless Darwinism into the discussion, not I. I've provided the transitional fossils for reptile-to-bird evolution. At this time, mutation and natural selection explain that evolution better than any scientific theories your camp can come up with. If you disagree with my examples of mutation causing "new and complex genetic information" then please go through each example and explain exactly why it is not a good example. It seems that you are asking for an example where a scientist sat in a lab for millions of years and watched reptiles evolve into birds. Of course this is not possible. But the fossil record shows such an evolution. The preponderance of evidence for common descent can be found here: 29+ Evidences for Macroevolution. Regarding my religious beliefs, I don't think the story of Adam and Eve in Eden is historical. I merely believe there was a first human, who we may call Adam or Eve for convenience's sake. Physical death is a natural process. The death spoken of by Paul in Romans 5 is spiritual death. Monod is essentially noting the problem of evil. But the problem of evil exists whether or not evolution is true. A disbelief in evolution does not make the problem go away. Bozarth makes a pathetic argument. He ignores the fact that all sin and hence there is a need for all to be redeemed by Christ.

I am saying I do not agree with godless Darwinism.

What passage do you think cannot be reconciled with the Documentary Hypothesis? The Documentary Hypothesis essentially says that the Pentateuch, as we now have it, was not written by Moses. However, it does not rule out the possibility that Moses wrote and spoke certain things. We also have to consider that the notion of authorship back then was more flexible than how we use the term.

Thanks for the summary AK. Obviously scientific ignorance does impact real world policies. It is also clear that some religious people remain in ignorance due to their religion. For example, on another board I ran across a Muslim who believed that the earth was the center of the universe and everything in the sky orbits around it. Why did he believe this? Because his interpretation of the Quran demanded it. Since we have public education, scientific ignorance will be partially dealt with politically (i.e., through the government). However, the author(s) of this article seem(s) to have overreached and abandoned science to some extent. Although it is true that some religious beliefs could hamper the learning of science it is also true that other religious beliefs do not hamper the learning of science. Saying that infants are born with a scientific intuition seems untestable. I agree with you that we need to engage the culture. Specifically, I think we need to engage in philosophy and science. On the philosophical level we can show the leaps of logic that exist in this article. On the scientific level we can show that our religion does not hamper our scientific learning. Ultimately I don't see the teaching of religion being outlawed any time soon.

No, as apparently I am unable to do so without buying the magazine, right? If there is a place to read it all without buying anything I'd read it (yes, I'm cheap, especially when the article doesn't sound very convincing from your description). Perhaps you can present an outline of their argument and I can comment on that. If you've been reading my posts then you know I believe God created the world. It's just that science poses no threat to my faith at all so I will agree with atheists on most scientific issues that come up here.

Did Ron Paul actually say that we brought 9/11 on ourselves or that our actions helped contribute to 9/11? There is no doubt that US foreign policy played a role in 9/11 but that is not the same as saying 9/11 was in any way morally justifiable. You forget that our foreign policy can increase the number of Islamists. That is true of Islamists but part of defeating that agenda could be a foreign policy that makes their numbers smaller. But US approval ratings in the Muslim world have been higher than it is now. If one approach to foreign policy created 1,000 Islamists and another approach to foreign policy created 10,000 Islamists is it not best to go with the first approach? Foreign policy can play a role (not the only role) in fighting Islamism.

There is nothing in the abstract that even mentions mental disorder. This paragraph seems to clearly be true. I think it is true that children are unaware of the scientific explanation of things and may resort to more simplistic explanations. They may be unaware of what lions are like in the wild or how and why clouds form. Is this surprising? Of course a child is more likely to accept a simple creationist explanation than a complex scientific idea like evolution.

Destroying the environment will cause suffering and death for countless humans and animals and hence cannot be the Christian thing to do. The Christian thing to do is to care for the environment because it is the beneficial thing to do. There is nothing anti-Christian about caring for animals (in fact treating animals inhumanely could be seen as anti-Christian). The steps that can be taken to curb global warming are environmentally friendly and beneficial even if global warming is bad science.

What percentage of the population is Republican though?

Fiscal conservative + social liberal works for me. I think third parties generally don't stand a chance because of money. Bloomberg has money and so he stands a chance, especially if people already like him as mayor.

Your question still seems to make wrong assumptions. Lobe-finned fishes existed about 378 mya and the oldest reptile found is from about 315 mya.

Your question is wrong-headed as it assumes that there is a specific number of generations for such evolution to occur and that evolution must take that path. By the way, my example was to show what would not happen. Common descent has been proven. There are fossils linking fish to tetrapods. "Genetic information" and "new genetic information" seem to be purposefully vague terms. Without a precise definition it is impossible to answer the question. Mutations cause changes to existing genetic material. It does not come from nowhere.

Because there are no selection pressures prompting such a change. Speciation has occurred in our life times but it is very gradual. You're not going to see a fish turn into a crocodile in one generation. Species (not individual animals) evolve or geologic time. We can only see very small changes in our lifetime. For example, you are probably aware that many types of bacteria have evolved to become resistant to antibiotics.

If these students had been armed they would have shot the fake invaders Seriously, you should probably tell them it's a drill for something like that.

I'm not looking to ignore any part of God's word (how did you reach that conclusion?). I'm looking for an intellectual reason as to why you reject the JEPD theory and how you explain the flood narrative. I have no problem reconciling Christianity with the JEPD theory nor do many other people.

I did read your whole post. I did not comment on your supposed analogy because it is not an apt analogy since you misrepresent Friedman's argument. An appeal to authority is not a valid argument. Furthermore, Friedman's academic resume and professional experience would mean he has more authority than you do. Clearly this is not the route you want to take. Then please demonstrate it as such. You initially said: "One very common Rabbinical way of writing is to first give 'the big picture' without much detail, and then to GO BACK, and focus very tightly on the 'important' part of the big story, and write about it with great detail, without bothering much about the big story." How about taking a few minutes and showing how the flood narrative fits that description because I don't see it?

You're attacking a straw man argument and not the actual argument put forth. Scholars begin by noting that Moses could not have written the Torah as we now have it. Then they note the doublets and the discrepancies which point to multiple authors. The common terminology and characteristics in the doublets then leads them to believe note that four main sources were used in composing the Torah.

AK, I might not know what you mean by "naturalistic evolution". When I responded to you, I took it to mean a belief that science can explain how evolution occurred without resorting to supernatural entities. With that in mind I saw no reason to think that that rules out that God might be needed to explain how the first lifeform came into existence or that God is needed to explain why the universe exists. I separated "naturalistic evolution" from naturalism. I agree with you that if we could explain (literally) everything in the universe (past, present, future) in naturalistic terms then we would rule out the Christian god's existence (but not a deistic god). Regarding morality, your post merely made assertions but I find nothing there I can agree with. Naturalism is compatible with the existence of human desires to live in a functioning society and taking actions to bring that about. Desires are part of nature. Human actions are part of nature. What actions fulfill desires can also be determined in a naturalistic fashion. Where's the problem?

Friedman might be Jewish but I'm pretty sure he is not Christian. Friedman's article on "Torah" in the Anchor Bible Dictionary is a good overview of the evidence. I'll try to summarize things here: First there are the reasons for believing that Moses did not write the Pentateuch (in its present form): The Torah notes that the Canaanites were in the promised land "at that time" (Gen 12:6; 13:7). This means that the Canaanites were no longer in the land when the Torah was written. The Torah speaks of things lasting "to this day" (Gen 22:14; 26:33; 32:32; 35:20; Dt 3:14; 34:6). These are not the words of a contemporary author but of an author pointing out that something from the past has endured to his time. The Torah contains various anachronisms such as the mention of the Philistines (Gen 21:32-34; 26:1, 8, 14-15; Ex 13:17; 15:14; 23:31). The Torah contains a list of Edomite kings who lived after Moses' death (Gen 36:31-39). The Torah refers to Moses in the third person. Num 12:3 says Moses was the humblest man on earth. It is hard to believe that the humblest man on earth would make such a statement. It is even harder to believe that he told people he was the greatest prophet Israel ever had as is done in Dt 34:10. Dt 1:1; 3:20 say that Moses spoke "across the Jordan". Moses was speaking on the eastern side of the Jordan which means the author was on the western side of the Jordan. Moses never crossed the Jordan and therefore could not have written such a thing. The Torah gives an account of Moses' death and the aftermath of that event (Dt 34). Dt 34:10 says that a prophet like Moses did not arise in Israel again. Such a statement could only be made by someone who had lived to see many other prophets. With the rejection of Mosaic authorship a fresh look at the text of the Pentateuch is required in order to determine how it came to be. A number of different types of evidence converge in confirming the JEPD theory. The number of doublets (and some triplets) in the Torah is rather high if it was written by a single author: Creation The genealogies of Cain and Seth, sons of Adam, have parellel names (Cain/Cainan, Enoch, Irad/Jered, Methushael/Methuselah, Lamech) The flood Genealogy from Shem Abraham's migration Wife being passed off as a sister to a king Abraham and Lot part company The covenant with Abraham Hagar and Ishmael Prophecy of Isaac's birth Naming of Beersheba Jacob and Esau Jacob at Bethel Jacob's twelve sons Jacob's name changed to Israel Joseph sold and taken to Egypt Moses summoned by YHWH Moses and Pharaoh The Passover The Red Sea Manna and quail Water from a rock at Meribah Theophany at mountain The Ten Commandments Kid in mother's milk Forbidden animals Centralization of sacrifice Holidays The spies Heresy at Peor Joshua appointed A close study of these doublets and triplets will reveal a startling fact. Where doublets or triplets occur, each version of the story will use its own terminology. Moreover, this characteristic terminology extends consistently over the doublets and triplets. For example, one version of the creation account will use the same terminology as one version of the flood account. This indicates that the same author wrote both stories. Some of that terminology is below: Contrasts between the sources: Sinai/Horeb. It is clear that all four sources know of a mountain where the theophany and covenant occurred. J and P call it Sinai while E and D call it Horeb or "the Mountain of God". There is no exception to this rule in the 34 occurrences of this mountain. The hardening of Pharaoh's heart. E uses the term kbd when describing the hardening of Pharaoh's heart (Ex 8:11, 28; 9:7, 34; 10:1) while P uses either hzq or qsh (Ex 7:13, 22; 8:15; 9:12; 14:4, 8, 17). The snake before Pharaoh. E uses the term nahas to describe the snake before Pharaoh while P uses the term tannin. J's terminology: 1. Contains 11 of the 13 occurrences of skb (to lie with) when it is used as a euphemism for sex. 2. Contains all 7 occurrences of sb (to suffer). 3. Contains all 5 occurrences of yd (to know) when it is used as a euphemism for sex. 4. Contains all 6 occurrences of sheol (the abode of the dead). P's terminology: 1. Contains all 11 occurrences of gw (to die). 2. Contains 14 of the 15 occurrences of the word ngp (plague). 3. Contains all (of the over 100) occurrences of the word edah (congregation). 4. Contains 67 of the 69 occurrences of the word nasi (tribal leader). 5. Contains 33 of the 35 occurrences of the word ahuzzah (possession). 6. Contains 22 of the 23 occurrences of "to complain" (lwn or telunot). 7. Contains 56 of the 59 occurrences of "cubit". 8. Contains all 11 occurrences of the phrase "gathered unto his people" as a euphemism for death (Gen 25:8, 17; 35:29; 49:29, 33; Num 20:24, 26; 27:13; 31:2; Dt 32:50 (twice)). 9. Contains all 3 occurrences of the phrase "fire came out from before YHWH" (Lev 9:24; 10:2; Num 16:35). 10. Contains all 8 occurrences of the phrase "and he/they fell on his/their face/s" (Gen 17:3, 17; Lev 9:24; Num 14:5; 16:4, 22; 17:9; 20:6). 11. Contains all 12 occurrences of the phrase "be fruitful and multiply" (Gen 1:22, 28; 8:17; 9:1, 7; 17:20; 28:3; 35:11; 47:27; 48:4; Ex 1:7; Lev 26:9). 12. Contains 12 of the 13 occurrences of the phrase "YHWH's glory" (kebod yhwh) (Ex 16:7, 10; 24:16, 17; 40:34, 35; Lev 9:6, 23; Num 14:10; 16:19; 17:7; 20:6) (Num 14:21 is in J). 13. Does not use the term "prophet" except for once (Ex 7:1) in a figurative sense. 14. Contains 11 of the 12 occurrences of the phrase "in that very day" (besem hayyom hazzeh). 15. Contains all 8 occurrences of the root dp. 16. Contains 8 occurrences of the word rekus (property) (Gen 12:5; 13:6; 31:18; 36:7; 46:6; Num 16:32; 35:3). Four other occurences are in Gen 14, an independent source (vv. 11, 12, 16, 21). The redactor uses the word once (Gen 15:14). 17. Contains 52 of the 53 occurrences of the phrase "as he commanded" in Gen-Num. D's terminology: 1. Contains all 9 occurrences of the phrase "with all your heart and with all your soul" (Dt 4:29; 6:5; 10:12; 11:13; 13:4; 26:16; 30:2, 6, 10). 2. Contains 11 of the 12 occurrences of the phrase "lengthen your days in the land". 3. Contains all 13 occurrences of the following phrases: "to go after other gods" or "to turn to other gods" or "to worship other gods". 4. Contains all 12 occurrences of the phrase "listen to the voice of YHWH" (sm bqwl yhwh). 5. Contains all 10 occurrences of the phrases "the place where YHWH sets his name" or "the place where YHWH tents his name". We can also note different characteristics between the souces: 1. The divine name. The names YHWH and El/Elohim occur more than 2000 times in the Pentateuch. Amazingly, there are only three exceptions to the rules laid out below. * J. In J the divine name (YHWH) was known from the beginning of human history for Eve knows the divine name (Gen 4:1) and people invoked that name (Gen 4:26). Individuals in J's narrative may use the term El/Elohim but the narrator never uses the term except when it is used to describe the "sons of God" in Gen 6:2. * E. In E the divine name is not revealed to humans until the time of Moses (Ex 3:13-15). There are two exceptions to this rule (Gen 28:21). * P. In P the divine name is not revealed to humans until it is revealed to Moses. There is one exception to this rule. 2. The Tabernacle. J and D never mention the tabernacle. E mentions it only three times. But P mentions the tabernacle over 200 times. It is the only acceptable site for sacrifices. The major ceremonies and laws are carried out there and all the revelations after Sinai occur at the tabernacle. 3. The ark of the covenant. In J the ark is important to Israel's success (Num 10:33-36; 14:44-45) while in E it is never mentioned. 4. Cherubs. Cherubs appear in J and P but not in E or D. 5. Puns. J and E use a fair amount of word play and puns while P and D rarely use them. 6. The staff of Moses/Aaron. In E the the miracles are performed by the staff of Moses (Ex 4:2-5, 17, 20; 7:15-17, 20b; 9:23; 10:13; 17:5-6, 8). In P the miracles are performed by the staff of Aaron (Ex 7:9-12, 19; 8:1-2, 12-13; Num 17:16-26; 20:8). 7. Moses and Pharaoh. E develops a process of negotiation between Moses and Pharaoh in the plagues narrative while P does not. 8. The Egyptian magicians. P develops the role of the Egyptian magicians in the plagues narrative while E does not. 9. Human Leadership. * P. In P the priesthood is of central importance. The only path to God is through the priesthood for only the priesthood has access to God through the Urim and Tummim. There are no prophets or judges. Moreover, the forgiveness of sins can only be obtained through sacrifices brought to the Aaronid priests. The words "mercy", "grace", "repentance", and "kindness" to do not occur in P. God acts mostly according to justice as opposed to according to mercy. * D. In D priests, prophets, and judges all play a role in the religious health of the community. The priesthood is not limited to Aaronids but extends to all Levites. P's characteristics: 1. No angels. 2. No talking animals. 3. No dreams. 4. No blatant anthropomorphisms. 5. There are no sacrifices before the consecration of the tabernacle and priesthood (Ex 40). 6. P regularly adds two major autumn holidays (Lev 16:29-34; 23:23-32; Num 29:1-11) to the standard list of three seasonal holidays contained in the other groups of texts. 7. Only in P are Aaron and Miriam called the brother and sister of Moses (Ex 6:20; Num 26:59). 8. Is the only source concerned with ages, dates, measurements, numbers, and precise instructions. 9. The Urim and Tummim are only mentioned in P and Dt 33:8. When combined these points (and others not listed) support the JEPD theory.

That's quite debatable seeing as biblical scholars are often Jews and Christians. But you never had to make a choice between biblical scholarship and your encounters with God in the first place. If you have never been introduced to biblical criticism it can come as a shock initially but it really is not a threat to Judaism or Christianity. If you were, for example, to accept the JEPD theory I don't think it would diminish your encounters with God at all. I understand that biblical scholarship may not be an interesting topic for everyone but it is not a threat (in fact, it can be quite useful in apologetics).

Genesis 1-2 is not the same as the flood account though. According to the JEPD theory, Genesis 1:1-2:3 is the P creation account while Genesis 2:4-25 is the J account of creation. We have the J account following the P account. But when it comes to the flood narrative the two sources are interspersed with each other. I re-read the flood text to see if your pattern could be found and I could not find it. I see that both J and P tell the same basic flood story and the text is rather repetitive. Neither is particularly more detailed than the other, nor does one deal with the big picture while the other deals with just an important aspect of that big picture. If you think your initial reasoning is valid I would like to see a more detailed explanation on how the flood story fits your thinking because I just don't see it.

I don't think even that is true. One might say that God is needed to explain the existence of the universe and the beginning of life. Since evolution does not explain the existence of the universe or how life began it does not remove the so-called need for God. This is false. Morality could succinctly be described as a set of rules that are meant to make society function at its best. Accepting evolution in no way inhibits one from reasoning about what rules would make society function best. See above. Also, I don't think Christians should base their faith in God on believing that God is necessary to explain certain gaps in our knowledge. In other words, don't believe in God merely because you can't explain everything scientifically. History has shown that those gaps in our knowledge can be filled. I don't think spreading Christianity through a god-of-the-gaps type argument is the way to go because it leads to people with weak faith who will leave the faith when the gaps are filled.