A Concern for Applying the Bible to the Natural Sciences

[enoob57]

I agree with Pat ... in fact present day evolutionary science is a faith based religion and not science at all! Science never guesses about anything. 

[The Barbarian]

29 minutes ago, The_Patriot21 said:

Your right the Bible is consistent with science 100% now it doesn't talk about white blood cells but that's never the bone of content anyway no one argues that.

What is in contention is age of the earth. Bible says creation in 7 literal 24 hour days.

In fact, the text itself says the "days" are not literal days.   No morning and evening without a sun to have them.   Even ancient Christians knew this, as St. Augustine mentions.

30 minutes ago, The_Patriot21 said:

Modern science says we evolved over millions of years. 

Which is entirely consistent with Genesis.   Just not with some modern revisions of the story.

31 minutes ago, The_Patriot21 said:

And modern science is a lie

It's just a method for learning about the physical universe.   There's no reason to be jealous of it.   It has nothing to say about the supernatural.   Can't say anything about that.  

It's been very successful in explaining natural phenomena.   But that's it.   Creationists try to force it into the Bible, but that never works, because the Bible is not a science textbook.  Those who try to make it so, miss God's revelation to us.

 

 

[The Barbarian]

27 minutes ago, enoob57 said:

I agree with Pat ... in fact present day evolutionary science is a faith based religion and not science at all! Science never guesses about anything. 

Several major errors there.   First, evolutionary theory is a scientific theory because it was a hypothesis, the predictions of which were subsequently and repeatedly verified.    Indeed, one major problem with Darwin's theory kept it controversial in science until the early 1900s, when the rediscovery of genetics cleared up the problem.  Would you like to hear about that?

A hypothesis comes closest in science to a guess, but it's more like an informed guess, based on existing knowledge.   All hypotheses, like Darwin's initial hypothesis, must make testable predictions.   His did.   And over the years, one prediction after another was verified, and as a result, almost all biologist now accept evolutionary theory.

Should we discuss some of them?   Some of them were actually verified in my lifetime.

Guesses really have nothing to do with the reason it's accepted by so many biologists.

 

[The Barbarian]

1 hour ago, Sparks said:

Why don't you use the full title of his book? 

On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favored Races in the Struggle for Life

People decided to shorten the title, like you did.  Go ahead, and use the full title in the future. 

Generally, books are cited by the title, not the alternative description.    BTW, you seem unaware that "races" in Darwin's time meant "populations of organisms."  Darwin wrote nothing at all about evolution of humans in that book.

I'll stay with the conventional practice, but if you aren't worried that people would suspect an ulterior motive, you can post the alternative description as you like.

 

[The Barbarian]

1 hour ago, Sparks said:

It's not.  When you make up things to make the literal look figurative, it is silly.

The sky isn't solid, and there are no windows in it for rain to fall through.   

1 hour ago, Sparks said:

You have to realize Catholics like yourself, and Protestants like me don't agree on scripture because of silliness like this.

It shouldn't be necessary to point out such things, but apparently, it is.   Protestants have come a long way since Luther and Calvin endorsed geocentrism.   

[Sparks]

57 minutes ago, The Barbarian said:

The sky isn't solid, and there are no windows in it for rain to fall through.   

It shouldn't be necessary to point out such things, but apparently, it is.   Protestants have come a long way since Luther and Calvin endorsed geocentrism.   

I am definitely not a Calvinist, nor a Catholic.  The Bible is meant to be easily read.  You don't need to do trapeze work to 'translate it' into something it is not.

1 hour ago, The Barbarian said:

Generally, books are cited by the title, not the alternative description.    BTW, you seem unaware that "races" in Darwin's time meant "populations of organisms."  Darwin wrote nothing at all about evolution of humans in that book.

I'll stay with the conventional practice, but if you aren't worried that people would suspect an ulterior motive, you can post the alternative description as you like.

You seem unaware that evolution theory, and specifically Darwin's book, was the reason for so much genocide in the world.  Hundreds of millions of people were killed in the name of 'favored races' under 10 leaders. 

And, oh yes it was due to evolution theory and atheism that these leaders slaughtered so many.  They thought they were helping out evolution to get rid of various races.  That is why evolution theory is so dangerous; it literally kills.

[The Barbarian]

42 minutes ago, Sparks said:

I am definitely not a Calvinist, nor a Catholic.  The Bible is meant to be easily read.

The message is very clear.  Problem is, people keep trying to add stuff God didn't intend to have their.   Whether God took no time at all or billions of years to make the Earth is completely irrelevant to the message therein.   Those who try to make it otherwise are missing the entire message.

42 minutes ago, Sparks said:

You don't need to do trapeze work to 'translate it' into something it is not.

But literalists still try.

42 minutes ago, Sparks said:

You seem unaware that evolution theory, and specifically Darwin's book, was the reason for so much genocide in the world. 

You seem unaware that Dawinists like Reginald Punnett debunked the racial theories of people like Hitler and ICR co-founder founder Henry Morris.   They promoted ideas of racial superiority in spite of evolutionary theory showing that those ideas were wrong.   Would you like me to show you how?

Eugenicists like Tinkle (also a co-founder of the ICR) were, like Hitler and Morris, promoting ideas of racial superiority long after science had debunked them.   Today, many if not most creationists are not racist or eugenicists and have abandoned the racial basis of creationism.    But the fact remains.  

Do creationists bear responsibility for people like Hitler who took their ideas and used them to kill millions?    I'll leave that for God to decide.   I think even Morris was revolted by the Holocaust.   I certainly hope so.

42 minutes ago, Sparks said:

Hundreds of millions of people were killed in the name of 'favored races' under 10 leaders. 

As you know, the "races" in the alternative of Darwin's book meant "populations of living things" in Darwin's time.   I don't blame you for being fooled.   Dishonest creationists have been peddling that deception for a long time.   Truth is, Darwin (and a good number of OE creationists) were determined opponents of slavery and preached equality among all humans.   Darwin infuriated many creationists by arguing that if "savages" were brought to England, in a few generations, they'd be just like Englishmen.   He was correct, of course.

This is why, in the United States YE creationism is strongest where slavery and racism was most prevalent.   They were for a long time, close allies.    This is why anti-Darwinians like Henry Morris and Hitler were so sure that there were inferior races.

"Often the Hamites, especially the Negroes, have become actual personal servants or even slaves to the others. Possessed of a genetic character concerned mainly with mundane matters, they were eventually displaced by the intellectual and philosophical acumen of the Japhethites and the religious zeal of the Semites.”

Institute for Creation Research co-founder Henry Morris

Anti-Darwinian Louis Agassiz even agreed with the worst of creationists that black people were not even the same species as other people and were not descended from Adam and Eve.   It's a blot on the character of an otherwise very competent scientist.

As I said, many if not most YE creationists have rejected the racist foundations of their beliefs.   But the fact remains.   And those beliefs killed millions.    Thousands in the United States. 

Religion, polygenism and the early science of human origins
Terence D. Keel
University of California Santa Barbara, USA
Abstract
American polygenism was a provocative scientific movement whose controversial claim that humankind did not share a common ancestor caused a firestorm among naturalists and the lay public beginning in the 1830s. This article gives specific attention to the largely overlooked religious ideas marshaled by American polygenists in their effort to construct race as a unit of analysis. I focus specifically on the thought of the American
polygenist and renowned surgeon Dr Josiah Clark Nott (1804–73) of Mobile, Alabama.

Scholars have claimed that in his effort to establish a properly modern scientific view of race Nott was one of the first American naturalists to publicly denounce the notion of common human descent (monogenesis) as proclaimed in the Bible. I argue that despite his rejection of monogenesis, Nott’s racial theory remained squarely within the tradition of Christian ideas about the natural world. American polygenism provides an example of
how scientific and religious ideas worked together in the minds of American antebellum thinkers in the development of novel theories about race and human origins.

Edited February 5 by The Barbarian

[Sparks]

6 minutes ago, The Barbarian said:

The message is very clear.  Problem is, people keep trying to add stuff God didn't intend to have their.   Whether God took no time at all or billions of years to make the Earth is completely irrelevant to the message therein.   Those who try to make it otherwise are missing the entire message.

But literalists still try.

You seem unaware that Dawinists like Reginald Punnett debunked the racial theories of people like Hitler and ICR co-founder founder Henry Morris.   They promoted ideas of racial superiority in spite of evolutionary theory showing that those ideas were wrong.   Would you like me to show you how?

Eugenicists like Tinkle (also a co-founder of the ICR) were, like Hitler and Morris, promoting ideas of racial superiority long after science had debunked them.   Today, many if not most creationists are not racist or eugenicists and have abandoned the racial basis of creationism.    But the fact remains.  

Do creationists bear responsibility for people like Hitler who took their ideas and used them to kill millions?    I'll leave that for God to decide.   I think even Morris was revolted by the Holocaust.   I certainly hope so.

As you know, the "races" in the alternative of Darwin's book meant "populations of living things" in Darwin's time.   I don't blame you for being fooled.   Dishonest creationists have been peddling that deception for a long time.   Truth is, Darwin (and a good number of OE creationists) were determined opponents of slavery and preached equality among all humans.   Darwin infuriated many creationists by arguing that if "savages" were brought to England, in a few generations, they'd be just like Englishmen.   He was correct, of course.

This is why, in the United States YE creationism is strongest where slavery and racism was most prevalent.   They were for a long time, close allies.    This is why anti-Darwinians like Henry Morris and Hitler were so sure that there were inferior races.

"Often the Hamites, especially the Negroes, have become actual personal servants or even slaves to the others. Possessed of a genetic character concerned mainly with mundane matters, they were eventually displaced by the intellectual and philosophical acumen of the Japhethites and the religious zeal of the Semites.”

Institute for Creation Research co-founder Henry Morris

As I said, many if not most YE creationists have rejected the racist foundations of their beliefs.   But the fact remains.

 

Nope.  You obviously never read Darwin's book.

[The Barbarian]

5 minutes ago, Sparks said:

Nope.  You obviously never read Darwin's book.

Books.   On the Origin of Species, The Descent of Man, Voyage of the Beagle.  And some of his technical papers.

You seem surprised by some of the things Darwin wrote, as well as some of the things people wrongly assume he wrote.   Maybe it's time to read and learn.

 

 

[Sparks]

1 hour ago, The Barbarian said:

Books.   On the Origin of Species, The Descent of Man, Voyage of the Beagle.  And some of his technical papers.

You seem surprised by some of the things Darwin wrote, as well as some of the things people wrongly assume he wrote.   Maybe it's time to read and learn.

You have the habit of redefining things to fit your needs.  I sense that you don't want Darwin to be revealed as a racist, but he existed in some of the most racist times and chose his title.  He should have known better being trained as a pastor that there is no such thing as race.

Darwin was no scientist either, so he has not got any 'technical papers.'  He was trained as a pastor, only.  Very few of the pioneers of evolution theory were actual scientists, and the entire theory lacks scientific observation.