Panel Discussion on ID and Evolution in Schools

Ed, is the Fred Phelps you mention the minister of a local Kansas cult church? The Fred Phelps I know of pickets the funerals of homosexuals believed to have died of HIV (and other, more famous gay men). He even had the gall to picket Mr. Rogers' funeral a couple of years ago. Is it that same Phelps?

OK, ignore that last comment, I apparently didn't read "And while he wasn't as hateful and horrible as his namesake" when I first read the entry. Sorry.

Dave-
Thankfully, this Fred Phelps was merely incompetent and clueless, not evil.

I'm amazed that a physicist would suggest that evolution was incompatible with the 2d law of thermodynamics. That's appalling.

raj-
When the other two physicists explained why he was wrong, he just kind of shrugged and said, "Okay". Then he pretty much shut up for the rest of the discussion, which was probably for the best.

Humor me if you will-

How on Earth is evolution and Christianity compatible without making the religion bend and twist. I am a Christian first of all and I think evolution is a correct theory as well.

I simply believe God started the process. However I must suspend my disbelief when it comes to my faith.

I mean did God favor homo sapiens over homo erectus? Did the first homo sapiens have a souless mother and father?

I think my reconciliation as with others is bending and twisting for he comfort of ourselves something a deist doesn't have to do. Evolution doesn't preclude God but it makes Christian doctrine less likely outside of faith.

hey... there's a wash post editorial advocating teaching ID alongside evolution in a 'let em battle it out' way. you may want to send a letter/respond

It was my great pleasure to invite Ed to our campus and to meet a real, live, Internet celebrity in person.

Thos of us who read Dispatches on a regular basis can't help but be impressed with the knowledge, conviction, compassion, and thoughtfulness Ed brings to his writing on a regular basis.

He is even more impressive in person.

Ed's command of the relevant science, case law, politics, and the personal space occupied by religious faith, and his ability to see the interconnectedness between all these areas, is truly a wonder to behold. In a room lousy with superfluous Ph.D.s, Ed clearly towered above the discussion at the same time he burrowed deep to the heart of more than one obfuscated point. The post-meeting cluster that gathered around Ed (which clearly would have become outright sycophantic in a few more minutes) was vivid testimony to his effectiveness.

There are important battles to fight, and I'm glad Ed is one of the champions. Keep it up, my friend.

DC wrote:

How on Earth is evolution and Christianity compatible without making the religion bend and twist.

Well, let me point you to three different resources on the subject. The first is Ken Miller's book Finding Darwin's God. He approaches it from a Catholic perspective. You can find the final chapter of this book here. Second is Keith Miller's Perspectives on an Evolving Creation, which is a collection of essays from Christian scientists on how they view the subject. You can find excerpts here. The third is from my colleague Howard Van Till, who sits on the MCFS board with me. He calls his idea the concept of a "fully gifted creation". You can find it all over the web, including here.

Dave-
I think you've exaggerated a bit, but thank you for the kind words. There's a check in the mail. :)

"There must be, what, 5 million atoms in a protein molecule? How did they all get lined up there like that? Atoms are very difficult to get to combine with each other." I loudly said, "Then please explain why we have elements."

...? Did you mean compounds? Because the last time I took high school chemistry, the reason we have elements has less to do with atomic interactions and more to do with the numbers of protons in an atomic nucleus...yes?

Not to split hairs (or atoms, as the case may be) but you did say this loudly.

Oops, thanks for catching that G-do. I totally wrote that wrong. What I said was, "How do you explain water?", and I have no idea why I wrote elements there. My only excuse is that I wrote this while still in the process of waking up.

Thanks.

But none of those answer the fundamental differences I expressed. They bend and twist and produce more questions than answers. I am familiar with kenneth Millers book and have talked with him about it.

All comes down to faith. And on this topic I find the creationists more consistent.

But none of those answer the fundamental differences I expressed. They bend and twist and produce more questions than answers. I am familiar with kenneth Millers book and have talked with him about it.
Well, they obviously don't think that they're twisting and bending anything. Since I'm not a Christian, I'm not terribly concerned about the specifics. I only know that a great many brilliant and well educated Christians have no difficulty reconciling the two.

Of course they do. How else can you explain their stance?

If you can reconcile homo sapiens and evolution with Christianity, you have to accept an baby born to souless parents et all.

I don't discount their brilliant and well educated just that like many things they choose to believe something and whether consciously or not have no problems bending their faith around the fact of evolution. I'm ok with it, I just accept the view that in reality they are not compatible.

I went and read the websites-not Millers I have read them before and they all seem to be:

A. denying the bible as a literal device

B. attacking naturalism with no alternative to accomodate what they know is true-evolution.

So in this regard I feel DC is more correct. They have faith and are bending and twisting it to fit a prior belief system.

If you can reconcile homo sapiens and evolution with Christianity, you have to accept an baby born to souless parents et all.
First, you have a misconception about how evolution proceeds. You seem to think that a homo erectus gave birth to a homo sapiens, but that is false. Populations evolve, not individuals. Secondly, your question depends entirely on what you mean by "soul". There are many ways to define that term, from an incorporeal self to the seat of the ego to the ability to know right from wrong. Different theological traditions define it in different ways. The fact that someone else may define it differently doesn't mean they're twisting it, just that they start from a different premise than you do.

Chance wrote:
I went and read the websites-not Millers I have read them before and they all seem to be:
A. denying the bible as a literal device
B. attacking naturalism with no alternative to accomodate what they know is true-evolution.This is a serious oversimplification. No one that I know of denies "the bible" as a "literal device"; they may well deny that some types of biblical literature are intended or should be read literally. There is an important distinction between the two. And your B point has the same problem. Howard Van Till, for example, does not "attack naturalism" at all. In fact, he attacks the attacks on naturalism by pointing out the many different types of naturalism and the tendency of IDers to combine them all together. Howard just sent me a paper this morning in which he delineates 4 different types of naturalism, including "naturalistic theism".

Ed you are incorrect, of course populations evolve-but at some point on the ladder the former gave birth to one who would begin the transition into the next.

Dawkins points this out in his most recent book 'The Ancestors Tale'. He uses the case of chimps having two offspring one has characteristics that enabled it's progeny to go this way while the other went another direction. BOTH started with the same mother. So while yes populations evolve their is a connected ladder from one to the other. A ladder that must be connected theologically. So perhaps it is not I who is misunderstanding the theory.

And I start from the premise as the majority of Christians would, an entity that dwells within a mortal body but is itself eternal.

'No one that I know of denies "the bible" as a "literal device"; they may well deny that some types of biblical literature are intended or should be read literally. '

See that is what I mean, they pick and choose, bend and twist. This part is literal, that part isn't. Why? because by doing this I can make it work for me and mine.

It's not intentionally dishonest and they are honorable men. BUT they still bend and twist to make it fit prior beliefs.

Ed, it seems on this one you are not seeing the obvious.

'Howard just sent me a paper this morning in which he delineates 4 different types of naturalism, including "naturalistic theism". '

Great. Now he simply has to prove a God exists for that to have merit at all. Why not fairy naturalism as well?

'This is a serious oversimplification. No one that I know of denies "the bible" as a "literal device"; they may well deny that some types of biblical literature are intended or should be read literally'

So what type of literal book is it then? fiction?

If some of it is literal and some is not which parts? Doesn't the acceptance that some is not to be taken literally a denial in some form of it's literal reliability?

Again DC's point is valid, they are bending and twisting. The creationists are misguided and wrong but they are consistent.

Once someone proves something exists outside the 'natural' world than the discussio has merit otherwise it's like running around in a dark room.

DC wrote:
And I start from the premise as the majority of Christians would, an entity that dwells within a mortal body but is itself eternal.
But why is this inherently contradictory with evolution? One could simply say, as many Catholics do, that God inserted a soul into the first Homo sapiens because it was the first and only species with a brain complex enough to reason abstractly and therefore understand the soul's existence? One does not have to believe that to be true in order to acknowledge that it's not internally contradictory.
See that is what I mean, they pick and choose, bend and twist. This part is literal, that part isn't. Why? because by doing this I can make it work for me and mine.
This is a ridiculous caricature of biblical scholarship, and it's the sort of thing that is typically engaged in by ignorant young evangelical atheists rather than by Christians themselves. No one in their right mind believes that every word of the bible is to be taken literally, even the most hardcore fundamentalist. When the book of Isaiah says that the mountains will sing and the trees will clap, does even the most staunchly literalist believe that mountains will suddenly develop vocal cords or that trees will applaud? Of course not, because they are able to recognize that this is figurative language. Christians may well disagree on whether a given passage may be the type of literature that should be interpreted literally or not, but that doesn't mean that the one who argues for a non-literal interpretation is doing so because they can "make it work" for them to "twist it" so it accomodates another idea they think is true. A non-literal interpretation of Genesis 1, for example, was not invented so that people could "twist the meaning" and find a way to fit evolution into it; non-literal interpretations of Genesis 1 go back at least as far as Augustine in the 4th century and a whole string of rabbis from at least the second century BC, and none of them were twisting the words to accomodate evolution.

Ed as mentioned previously, I am a Christian. I just accept certain things on faith. In such I am being inconsistent and twisting my belief to match what I know to be true.

'But why is this inherently contradictory with evolution? One could simply say, as many Catholics do, that God inserted a soul into the first Homo sapiens because it was the first and only species with a brain complex enough to reason abstractly and therefore understand the soul's existence?'

What part of this are you not getting? The first homo sapiens is purely an arbritrary point that we designate as a species. As a person who 'understands' evolution you must realize that speciation is a purely a human endeavor. The first 'homo sapiens' would have been virtually identical to it's parents and only the charactersitics that enabled it to survive would have allowed the population to change as a whole. Hence again-where does a soul get placed in the evolutionary scheme?

You said:'This is a ridiculous caricature of biblical scholarship, and it's the sort of thing that is typically engaged in by ignorant young evangelical atheists rather than by Christians themselves.'

As mentioned I am a Christian so this statement really doesn't apply.

you said:'No one in their right mind believes that every word of the bible is to be taken literally, even the most hardcore fundamentalist.
When the book of Isaiah says that the mountains will sing and the trees will clap, does even the most staunchly literalist believe that mountains will suddenly develop vocal cords or that trees will applaud?'

Ok what seperates that from the resurrection? Is that figuative? How about the woman turning into salt? People living to 900years? Figurative or literal? The list is virtually endless.

'Christians may well disagree on whether a given passage may be the type of literature that should be interpreted literally or not, but that doesn't mean that the one who argues for a non-literal interpretation is doing so because they can "make it work" for them to "twist it" so it accomodates another idea they think is true.'

Of course it does. People do it all the time, relook at an idea in the light of new evidence that is likely true.

'A non-literal interpretation of Genesis 1, for example, was not invented so that people could "twist the meaning" and find a way to fit evolution into it; non-literal interpretations of Genesis 1 go back at least as far as Augustine in the 4th century and a whole string of rabbis from at least the second century BC, and none of them were twisting the words to accomodate evolution'

Correct. But then you see the simple fact again of having to decide what is literal and what isn't. Just because Augustine did it doesnt make him anymore consistent. He was simply doing the same thing. He was picking and choosing.

Modern protestants who hold to a literal reading of the bible but allow for evolution are bending the belief system, same for old earthers'. Again I'm ok with it, but they do it despite obvious meanings in the text.

Chance wrote:
Great. Now he simply has to prove a God exists for that to have merit at all. Why not fairy naturalism as well?
For crying out loud, the issue wasn't whether Howard was right about the existence of God or not, it was whether he "attacks naturalism". He does not. Christianity may be incompatible with one type of naturalism (metaphysical naturalism) but not with other types of naturalism (naturalistic theism or methodological naturalism). To claim that he "attacks naturalism" is to make the same mistake that he IDers make in oversimplifying the idea of naturalism by not distinguishing between the different types of naturalism. Science invokes methodological naturalism, but not metaphysical naturalism. And Christianity, like all forms of theism, is entirely compatible with methodological naturalism. Hence, there is no intrinsic contradiction there, which was my only point. I wasn't arguing that Howard is right to believe in God, only that his belief in God is not intrinsically against "naturalism" or science.
So what type of literal book is it then? fiction? If some of it is literal and some is not which parts? Doesn't the acceptance that some is not to be taken literally a denial in some form of it's literal reliability?
No. The bible isn't an "it", it's a "them" - it's a large collection of texts of many different literature types. Indeed, you can find different types of literature within many of the texts as well. The gospels, for instance, contain text that is intended as literal history, but also parables, which are not intended as literal history but as stories with a moral lesson attached to them. In addition to those two, you also have parts of the bible that were written as song or poetry, other parts that were written as mythology, or as wisdom literature, as tribute, and so forth.
To say that one portion of the bible was written as poetry and therefore it would be pointless to search for a literal meaning is not to deny the reliability of the bible as a whole, it's just to recognize the intent and usage of different types of literature as you would in any other setting. You wouldn't search for a literal meaning of Grimm's Fairy Tales because you recognize the type of literature that it is. See my example to DC above about the book of Isaiah, where no one in their right mind would interpret the passage literally. There may be disagreements about whether a particular book or passage should be read literally or not, but those disagreements are settled by scholarly debate, not by foolishly proclaiming that if any single portion of it was intended as a parable or as poetry, nothing else in it should be read as anything but parable of poetry. No informed reading of the bible would begin with the assumption that every single word is literally true and then decide on a non-literal interpretation for any passages that are inconvenient as you suggest. Rather, it begins with an examination of the types of literature used in each passage, how to identify it, how to read that type of literature, and so forth.

But why is this inherently contradictory with evolution?

Good point. I think maybe DC forgot that people are perfectly capable of making stuff up from out of thin air when they are desperate. So I think perhaps he should say "pick and choose, bend and twist, and make stuff up from out of the thin blue sky." That way he gives you less room for pretending you are scoring some fancy schmancy debating points or something.

No one in their right mind believes that every word of the bible is to be taken literally, even the most hardcore fundamentalist.

Well, yeah. That's why it's necessary for them to pick and choose, bend and twist, and make stuff up from out of the thin blue sky. Gimme a break.

Unfortunately Ed there are some fanatical types who do believe the mountains sing and trees clap, and other literal tripe. Some even are able to hold as true directly contradictory passages from different books and/or chapters. Be that as it may, that isn't the issue.

I think much of what has become a big part of this problem is the failure of the majority of the nation's christian clergy, partly from poor theological training and from lowered standards of entry into theology and divinity schools, to adequately express the deeper well studied nuances of a long and surprisingly sophisticated theological history. Most of those who support ID and Creationism, indeed the near totality, seem to struggle with comprehending the layers of hard work performed by christianity's philosophers and theologians, especially over the last hundred years. As you pointed out as being caricature, silly little clues suggest that intellectual laziness on the part of those responsible for teaching and training the clergy have left a lay class to struggle with their faith. Dumbed down education is dumbed down education, happening across the board, as evidenced most recently by the behavior of the Congressional leadership.

'The gospels, for instance, contain text that is intended as literal history, but also parables, which are not intended as literal history but as stories with a moral lesson attached to them.'

Agreed, but so do many other books of the bible. So again to determine what is literal, meant to be literal, myth, allegory, et al is to place a subjective human view on all of it.

'To say that one portion of the bible was written as poetry and therefore it would be pointless to search for a literal meaning is not to deny the reliability of the bible as a whole, it's just to recognize the intent and usage of different types of literature as you would in any other setting.'

The reliability of the bible as a whole? For what? History? Science? Morals? or a view into the myths and life of our ancestors?

'No informed reading of the bible would begin with the assumption that every single word is literally true and then decide on a non-literal interpretation for any passages that are inconvenient as you suggest'

Ahh, no informed reading. So the millions of church going Americans who start with the asumption that the bible is literally the word of God and then, when presented with a differing scientific view(no global flood),will alter a prior view of th bible being literally true to one conceeding the story is likely allegory.

Or when six days of creation is seen to be unlikely will change the days to age to accomodate the obviously ancient Earth alah Glenn Morton.

So is the Earth stopping in it's orbit allegory or literal?

Is the flood allegory or literal?

The resurrection literal? ascention? miracles? Thats the entire point as I read DC, that people pick and choose but that the fundies are more consistent.

'Most of those who support ID and Creationism, indeed the near totality, seem to struggle with comprehending the layers of hard work performed by christianity's philosophers and theologians, especially over the last hundred years. As you pointed out as being caricature, silly little clues suggest that intellectual laziness on the part of those responsible for teaching and training the clergy have left a lay class to struggle with their faith.'

OR the underlaying assumptions, most of which have never been adequately answered by any philosopher and the steady onslaught of rationality are removing the underpinnings that need to be in place for many peoples faith to exist.

many are simply finding a better way to live.

The following essay/paper by Walter Davis summarizes the evangelical mindset regarding their struggles with learning to accept the literal word.

http://www.counterpunch.org/davis01082005.html

And i really start giggling when i imagine a deeply committed, non-theologically trained, believer standing in a Borders or Barnes & Noble attempting to rectify the texts of chapters and verses found in the 37 bibles they sell, including ones titled: Teen Devotional, or New Lifestyle, or Children's Easy-Reader Bible??

Heck I am theologially trained and it can be tough.

What one always has to keep in mind with all theological debates is essentially that no one can prove anything so it amounts to so much gibberish.

People ahve faith for different reasons, if we had proof we wouldn't require faith.

People will always struggle with faith because it simply can never be proven. Which makes it difficult.

But of course people bend, twist, and create methods to make it all make sense.

What part of this are you not getting? The first homo sapiens is purely an arbritrary point that we designate as a species. As a person who 'understands' evolution you must realize that speciation is a purely a human endeavor. The first 'homo sapiens' would have been virtually identical to it's parents and only the charactersitics that enabled it to survive would have allowed the population to change as a whole. Hence again-where does a soul get placed in the evolutionary scheme?
It doesn't, because evolution doesn't have anything to do with "souls", but with bodies. If you want to believe that one species has a non-physical reality as well as a physical reality, and that that non-physical component was placed there by God, then what difference does it make how the physical body developed to that point? As a Christian, you do believe that only one species has a soul, and that species is Homo sapiens. How that species came to be has no bearing on that reality. It could be because God created the species directly, or it could be because God allowed that species to evolve and then place a non-material soul into it. The only difference is that believing that the physical species evolved is more consistent with the evidence. The existence of the soul and the notion that the soul comes from God is a matter of faith regardless of how the physical species came to exist.
As far as the whole thing about biblical interpretation is about, I find it surreal that a non-Christian has to explain to a Christian that you can make an objective and consistent argument for a literal or non-literal interpretation of a given passage, by reference to the literature type for example, without "twisting" the meaning or "bending" their belief system. It can be done without any reference to any scientific theory, and biblical scholars debate such interpretation issues all the time, and it rarely has anything to do with any scientific theory. The problem here is your conception that a literal translation of every word is the "default" position and that any non-literal interpretation must be "twisting" or "bending" the meaning.

Chance wrote:
So again to determine what is literal, meant to be literal, myth, allegory, et al is to place a subjective human view on all of it.
For crying out loud, the act of writing is to place a subjective human view on something. The bible was writen by humans and they wrote using different types of literature. To read it as a human and try to determine what was intended by it is no more subjective than the act of writing itself.

How you can be entirely missing the point is becoming hard to understand.

you said:'If you want to believe that one species has a non-physical reality as well as a physical reality, and that that non-physical component was placed there by God, then what difference does it make how the physical body developed to that point? '

Because then you must accept that the parents of the first 'souled' being had no souls. And it progresses from there. So since homo sapiens is a purely man-made distinction where and why did the soul get placed where it did?

And on top of that, did original sin enter with this 'first' human or it's souless parents?

you said:'It could be because God created the species directly, or it could be because God allowed that species to evolve and then place a non-material soul into it'

Thats not the point, we are going from the point of view that evolution and Christianity are workable without making stuff up, bending and twisting. Which they are not, if we were talking Deism I would be more inclined to agree.

you said:'As far as the whole thing about biblical interpretation is about, I find it surreal that a non-Christian has to explain to a Christian that you can make an objective and consistent argument for a literal or non-literal interpretation of a given passage, by reference to the literature type for example, without "twisting" the meaning or "bending" their belief system'

I never disagreed that you coulddo this, just that people will bend and twist meanings to fit their preconceived notions of reality. Like I said any given passage can be read as literal or non-literal depending on who is reading it. But it is more consistent to maintain a literal or an allegorical reading than a mixture of both andthen pretend that it all comes together coherently.

Why should Genesis be any more myth or allegory than the resurrection and ascention?

you said 'It can be done without any reference to any scientific theory, and biblical scholars debate such interpretation issues all the time, and it rarely has anything to do with any scientific theory'

Correct, they can't even agree from this angle. However to deny that scientists who have faith don't bend and twist perceived contradictions with their field is not honest either. Such as saying somehow the bible and evolution wash.

you said:'The problem here is your conception that a literal translation of every word is the "default" position and that any non-literal interpretation must be "twisting" or "bending" the meaning'

No a non-literal interpretation need not be bending and twisting, your misunderstanding. But to fit old earth and evolution into Genesis you have to go nonliteral when the book clearly means what it says. Which to me robs the story of it's wonder and majesty.

Like I said I feel on this the creationists are more consistent. They just ignore evidence.

'For crying out loud, the act of writing is to place a subjective human view on something. The bible was writen by humans and they wrote using different types of literature. To read it as a human and try to determine what was intended by it is no more subjective than the act of writing itself.'

So then why didn't you just agree with him. If the writing is subjective as is the reading of it- you both agreed.

:-)

"I fear for the physics students at CMU with that guy on the faculty."

Have a little imagination! If this nation is to lead the world in Perpetual Motion Machines, you won't see them invented at any university that *obeys* the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics.

What one always has to keep in mind with all theological debates is essentially that no one can prove...? People have faith for different reasons, if we had proof we wouldn't require faith. People will always struggle with faith because it simply can never be proven."

What i find troubling here is the reductive notion implied in simply giving into faith, without doing the work(Chance claiming to have been doing the work). One of the disciplines, initially generated within theological studies, and now more fully developed and expanded in philosophy and the sciences, is hermeneutics. One's foundational religious structure requires coherency within itself. It isn't about proving a set of theoretical conditions based on information from external sources, as much as embracing the internal coherency of meanings and referents that support the credo, support the faith--keeping oneself hermeneutically sound.

One mans sound hermeneutics is another mans stupidity.

What is absurd is buying into the notion that somehow any faith has been proven superior to any other faith, let alone proven on it's own merits.

'One's foundational religious structure requires coherency within itself.'

exactly which is why philosophically they are often so much rabble. Often times with ample helpings of circular reasoning, reduction ad infinitum, wishful thinking, and whatever else it takes to make it work.

" But to fit old earth and evolution into Genesis you have to go nonliteral when the book clearly means what it says. "

Are you *sure* about that?
Then why two versions?
Why 7 days (given the significance of that number in ancient numerology)?

the book means what it says? Reminds me of a story where a nonliterate native chief throws down a Bible in disgust, exclaiming that it doesn't say _any_ of the things the priest had claimed - in fact, it says nothing at all! While almost certainly untrue, it does get to an important bit of litcrit - the book *isn't* saying anything. We're the ones making it say stuff as we read it. *All* reading is bending and twisting, in some way.

Personally, my favorite not-my-religion-and-no-evidence-imaginable-but-while-we're-spouting-off reply would be, regarding the whole 'original sin' bit, that this fits rather well into the idea that humans evolved from less intelligent, less self-aware (including that's self's mortality) ancestors. This isn't really any less bendy-twisty, given our frame of reference. Indeed, much of the doctrine of original sin involves a downright game of Twister, when you think about it . . .

ME: 'As far as the whole thing about biblical interpretation is about, I find it surreal that a non-Christian has to explain to a Christian that you can make an objective and consistent argument for a literal or non-literal interpretation of a given passage, by reference to the literature type for example, without "twisting" the meaning or "bending" their belief system'
DC:I never disagreed that you could do this, just that people will bend and twist meanings to fit their preconceived notions of reality. Like I said any given passage can be read as literal or non-literal depending on who is reading it. But it is more consistent to maintain a literal or an allegorical reading than a mixture of both andthen pretend that it all comes together coherently.
If you never disagreed that you could make a valid argument for the non-literal interpretation of a passage by referring to the style of literature found there, then why on earth do you keep insisting that any non-literal interpretation of any passage amounts to "twisting" or "bending" the belief system? This whole conversation is absolutely surreal and I think I'm bringing it to an end now. This is just idiotic. Yes, the person who says "every single passage of the bible should be taken absolutely literally" is "more consistent" than the person who says "some passage are intended to be taken literally and some are not, depending on the type of literature the passage represents". He's more consistent, but he's a fucking moron making an utterly idiotic claim. By your reasoning, the person who says all cars are blue is "more consistent" than the person who acknowledges that there are many different colors of cars. But what on earth is the virtue of being "more consistent" in this manner, if you're not consistent with reality? I think this may be the single dumbest argument I've ever seen on this blog.

Either I didn't convey my thoughts properly or you didn't understand them as such.

'He's more consistent, but he's a fucking moron making an utterly idiotic claim'

exactly my point.

'But what on earth is the virtue of being "more consistent" in this manner, if you're not consistent with reality?'

Exactly again. What you are failing to see is the simple fact that none of it is consistent with reality, none of it. Which is why folks will subject a book 6000 years old to interpretation after interpretation to 'fit' their knowledge.

The creationist IS more consistent, your false analogy notwithstanding, than someone who sees evolution in Genesis. It's not the same as seeing all blue cars when obviously there are different options without calling blue red. Six days is six days.

The creationist IS more consistent, your false analogy notwithstanding, than someone who sees evolution in Genesis. It's not the same as seeing all blue cars when obviously there are different options without calling blue red. Six days is six days.
You don't have to "see evolution in Genesis" in order to have it be compatible with evolution, you just have to not have a literal interpretation of the story as an explanation for how life came to be. And the fact is that an allegorical interpretation of Genesis 1 goes back at least 1600 years, which obviously belies your claim that people have to "twist" and "bend" the meaning to allow it to fit with evolution. Arguments for a non-literal interpretation of Genesis, based upon the structure of the story, upon the type of literature it represents, have been presented by bible scholars for more than 2000 years, if you go back to some of the Jewish scholars. So if there is a good and solid argument for a non-literal reading, and it predates evolution by 1500 years, then it's silly to claim that a non-literal interpretation must necessarily amount to someone "bending their belief system". I have no idea if they're right or not, it's not my field, but that doesn't matter. The only question is whether they have to subjectively twist the meaning of words or not, and it's clear that they do not have to do so in this case. Believe it or not, biblical scholarship goes a whole lot deeper than "it's all true" and "it's all crap".

"BUT they still bend and twist to make it fit prior beliefs."

Everyone does this. The philosophers call it "Bayesian inference" and it is one of the hallmarks of human learning. Everyone operates in a belief framework that shapes how they interpret incoming data; the framework only changes when enough completely strange data is registered.

I suspect you'd agree that every Christian interprets the Bible differently, too, DC. One of the most annoying arguments to get into with a fellow Christian is "you're just taking the pieces of the Bible that please you! You need to take the whole thing," despite the fact that most every Christian eventually runs into some trouble reconciling different parts of his or her faith and makes a decision based on his or her own belief framework.

Ed , ug,again.

you said;'nd it predates evolution by 1500 years, then it's silly to claim that a non-literal interpretation must necessarily amount to someone "bending their belief system". '

ED it's not all about origins. Evolution doesn't really allow for a satisfactory answer for original sin, a moment when the first 'human' appeared, and in fact as seen by many it is wasteful way to get to an end result seeing how 99% of species have gone extinct. Somehow this fits neatly with the doctrines of Christianity without bending and creating things to make it fit. How? we make it up as we go along.

G-do, that is my point. Evolution really doesn't fit neatly with Christian doctrine. And Christians, myself included, reconcile it by whatever means necessary. Apparently Ed has a problem with the word bend and twist. Perhaps a more polite word like reconcile will make him happy.

The simple fact is most of us are raised with one belief system or another, when evidence makes it's way to us we either reconcile it to our beliefs by whatever means or change/dump the belief system.

If evolution was such a good fit and no 'reconciliation' was required millions would find the theory more palatable. But the masses find it contradicts their understanding of scripture,an understanding I feel is incorrect, BUT is as valid a belief system as those who attempt to reconcile evolution with a 6000 year old book written by people who simply didn't have our tools.

He's more consistent, but he's a fucking moron making an utterly idiotic claim.

I'm guessing that would include people like this guy:

MOORE: Because there's no--there's no scientific evidence of evolution. Evolution is a theory and has been recognized so by many. You have always heard of the missing link, haven't you?

http://evolutionblog.blogspot.com/2005/03/moore-on-proper-medical-training.html

'Believe it or not, biblical scholarship goes a whole lot deeper than "it's all true" and "it's all crap".'

No shit Ed! wow. But of course for a literalist it is all BELIEVED to be true. And all crap? It's the thoughts of men and a product of the times. But many lessons can be learned from it.

ED it's not all about origins.

It's not all about evolution, either. Augustine, for example, saw lots of conflicts between science/logic and the Scriptures. But rather than admitting that perhaps some of the authors were ignorant or maybe just telling some tall tales, he preferred to call them "allegories." Well, hey, at least he was erring on the side of empiricism. Is that so bad?

396sx- good point.

G-do, that is my point. Evolution really doesn't fit neatly with Christian doctrine. And Christians, myself included, reconcile it by whatever means necessary. Apparently Ed has a problem with the word bend and twist. Perhaps a more polite word like reconcile will make him happy.
It absolutely would make me happy. You have implied all along, through the use of phrases like "twisting the meaning" and "bending their beliefs", that there is something disingenuous going on. That's why I kept pointing out that all it requires is a legitimate basis for a non-literal reading, and solid arguments for a non-literal reading of the relevant passages goes back 1500 years before evolution. And a Christian scientists like Davis Young, for instance, would argue that God gave us two books of revelation, the Bible and the natural world, and that the book of nature should be used to temper and inform our interpretations of the Bible. The point is that there are credible and scholarly ways to do this, meaning it's no more "inconsistent" than the person who maintains that there are more than blue cars in the world. Consistent with reality is far more important than the kind of consistency you're talking about.
But of course for a literalist it is all BELIEVED to be true
Again, this is a caricature of literalism. Even the most staunchly literalist does not believe that every word is intended literally. Even the staunchest literalist recognizes that some of it is written in parables, for instance, and that parables are not to be taken literally. No one in their right mind believes that every passage is intended to be literally true. The only relevant question is determining which ones are and which ones aren't, and one can do that through good scholarship rather than by "twisting the meaning" or "bending their beliefs". The fact that the "masses" don't engage in that sort of scholarship has no bearing on the question of whether one can consistently and reasonably reconcile the two.

[quote] You have implied all along, through the use of phrases like "twisting the meaning" and "bending their beliefs", that there is something disingenuous going on.[/quote]

Actually I specifically said they were not doing anything disingenuous, but rather making something they know to be true(evolution) fit prior beliefs gained by who knows what reason.

[quote]That's why I kept pointing out that all it requires is a legitimate basis for a non-literal reading, and solid arguments for a non-literal reading of the relevant passages goes back 1500 years before evolution.[/quote]

No problem, I am a nonliteral reader myself. BUT that doesn't change the fact that I am picking and choosing which parts I feel are literal and which are not. For instance David and Goliath are considered literal stories, I view them as allegory. It's a slippery slope.

[quote]And a Christian scientists like Davis Young, for instance, would argue that God gave us two books of revelation, the Bible and the natural world, and that the book of nature should be used to temper and inform our interpretations of the Bible. The point is that there are credible and scholarly ways to do this,[/quote]

That is credible and scholarly to you? Why? because he used big words and degrees. Exactly how does he 'prove' either is any form of divine revelation? He is reconciling his boyhood beliefs with facts gained into his adulthood, and as such doing what works for him.

[quote]meaning it's no more "inconsistent" than the person who maintains that there are more than blue cars in the world. Consistent with reality is far more important than the kind of consistency you're talking about.[/quote]

Of course it is, but how is theistic evolution consistent with reality or with the Christian faith as a whole. This is the entire point. Evolution need not be theistic, to be consistent with the doctrines put forth by Christianity it causes more problems than it solves.

Problems which can only be resolved, not by reconciliation, but by basically saying well maybe God did this or that. On this area creationist doctrine is more consistent with traditional Christian faith. Which is why it is so threatening to many of them.

[quote]Even the most staunchly literalist does not believe that every word is intended literally. Even the staunchest literalist recognizes that some of it is written in parables, for instance, and that parables are not to be taken literally. No one in their right mind believes that every passage is intended to be literally true. [/quote]

many are not in their right minds. And theologians argue so much over what is literal and what isn't that it virtually renders each and every passage meaningless. Not what you would expect from a book written by a deity.

[quote]The only relevant question is determining which ones are and which ones aren't, and one can do that through good scholarship rather than by "twisting the meaning" or "bending their beliefs".[/quote]

Good grief Ed if you can explain away Genesis as an allegory, then you can do the same for the resurrection, miracles, the ascention, 900 year old people, the tower of babel, the flood, heaven, hell, angels, and on and on. Scholarship is not going to provide clear insight into any of these as literal or nonliteral other than mythological origins. Whether you think they really occured or not has more to do with belief than any factual evidence.

[quote]The fact that the "masses" don't engage in that sort of scholarship has no bearing on the question of whether one can consistently and reasonably reconcile the two.[/quote]

Ed you are sugly condescending to the masses. I would assume then you have a catholic bent and the great unwashed masses can never understand what the theologians do. What scholarship has shown is that the bible is very human book with various mythologies and cultural traditions intertwined. What theology does is muddy the waters with men trying to reconcile obvious mythological elements into a belief system they can live with.

You're a baffling case, DC. When pressed to show that reconciling Christianity with evolution involves "twisting" and "bending" the belief system, you reply with arguments for why there's no good reason to believe anything in Christianity or the bible. For crying out loud, I'm not even a Christian and I wouldn't make a statement like that (there are many things in the bible that we can be reasonably certain actually happened). I think you're quite confused as to your own reasons for being a Christian and projecting that confusion on to others who have a far more sophisticated and scholarly approach to such matters. Not everyone is as confused as you are, DC. Not everyone finds it so difficult to determine the types of literature in various parts of the bible. To blithely claim that scholarship isn't going to provide any insight is a safe statement when you don't bother to engage the scholarship at all. I would suggest that you are reading your own limitations on to others.

'And a Christian scientists like Davis Young, for instance, would argue that God gave us two books of revelation, the Bible and the natural world, and that the book of nature should be used to temper and inform our interpretations of the Bible.'

which begs the question- Why on Earth should we temper anything natural with the bible in the first place. You could just as easily substitute the Koran or any other holy book into that spot.

First you have to prove your underlying assumption before you can proceed any further. In this case the underlying assumption is that the bible-whichever one you choose be it Catholic, protestant, mormon- is reliable as an indicator of anything other than mythology.

I see DC's point. I also think you two are talking around each other and agree for the most part.

Creationism makes sense because it makes the Christian doctrine work in a simple manner.

Evolution creates problems for the Christian doctrine that are either explained away or never adequately addressed. But folks try anyway.

Ed I'm confused as to why to take a philosophical discussion so personally. But anyway-

[quote]You're a baffling case, DC. When pressed to show that reconciling Christianity with evolution involves "twisting" and "bending" the belief system, you reply with arguments for why there's no good reason to believe anything in Christianity or the bible.[/quote]

Ed, can a person not play a little Devil advocate for a minute. If you recall my first post I stated I suspend my disbelief as a conscious act for my own reasons. I'm honest about it. I never said they are no good reasons to believe, just that I feel those who follow creationism have a more complete doctrine than those who place evolution into the doctrine.

[quote]For crying out loud, I'm not even a Christian and I wouldn't make a statement like that (there are many things in the bible that we can be reasonably certain actually happened).[/quote]

Of course we can. Can you give me a few of the things you think actually happened?

[quote]I think you're quite confused as to your own reasons for being a Christian and projecting that confusion on to others who have a far more sophisticated and scholarly approach to such matters.[/quote]

Nice ad hominum. I have intentionally left out my background for the simple reason I wanted to discuss this on it's merits. But you are totally incorrect. I have read and studied, not to mention discussed these matters with some of the people you mentioned. So your words fall short.

[quote]Not everyone is as confused as you are, DC. Not everyone finds it so difficult to determine the types of literature in various parts of the bible.[/quote]

I am not confused sir. Not 1 bit. But thanks for yet another helping of condescention. I have never said there are not different kinds of literature, just that no one agrees with what types and meaning can be applied to any of it. It's honest. As a christian i accept what I believe may be wrong.

[quote]To blithely claim that scholarship isn't going to provide any insight is a safe statement when you don't bother to engage the scholarship at all.[/quote]

I didn't say you wouldn't get any insight, EXACTLY the opposite. I said it would provide a clear view of the mythological origins.

But you have ignored the issues nearly in entirety. Evolution causes problems for Christian doctrine which are not easily explained away, and frankly have never been answered.

The creationists do not have that problem, their problem is with reality. As a Christian I accept some things happen that i can't explain, the folly of attempting to adequately explain when a soul enters a homo sapiens designated whenever we say it does is no more scholarly than trying to prove a global flood occured and Noah floated around on an ark.

Some things you take on faith.

[quote]I would suggest that you are reading your own limitations on to others.
[/quote]

Really, so you just accept that God placed souls into men at some given point because some fella said so.Hmmmm.

Some things I take on faith.

Ed,

I really think you making a great case for ID and the bible in general.

I think you also haven't addressed DC's points.

1.Evolution cannot be inserted into Christian doctrine without disrupting the doctrine more so than creation.

2. Evolution presents problems for the doctrine just as big, perhaps bigger, than special creation.

3. Scholars may tell you alot about origins, writing style, but they can never really access meaning and intent, its all subjective.

I think DC is just stating the obvious really. Evolution disrupts the doctrine, people need to keep the faith, make doctrince to fit.

The density continues. For both Uber and DC, the issue at hand is not whether Christianity is true or not (I obviously don't believe it is, or I would be a Christian). The issue is whether one can accept both Christianity and evolution without being inconsistent. When you say things like, "Really, so you just accept that God placed souls into men at some given point because some fella said so", you are so blatantly distorting what I said that there is no point in continuing. You are simply too dense to carry on a rational conversation about it. And if that's "condescending", tough. It's also true, and that is all that matters.

I really think you making a great case for ID and the bible in general.
I'm not even attempting to do so. I am not a Christian and I reject the bible as authoritative in any way. The fact that you guys keep pretending that I'm defending the bible's accuracy is proof positive that you're creating a straw man. "Christian doctrine" is a very broad thing; there is no single "Christian doctrine", there are wide disagreements over virtually every aspect of it. The fact that someone interprets a passage differently from what you perceive "Christian doctrine" to be does not mean they are "twisting" that doctrine or "bending their beliefs" to accomodate evolution. It likely means that they start from an entirely different doctrinal or interpretive premise than you do, or than you expect them to. Their failure to accept what you think they should accept as a starting point is not proof of inconsistency, it's proof of your limited understanding of the variations within Christian theology.

You know ED, I have been polite to you and I will continue to be.

As I said again and again you can accept Christianity and evolution. I do. It is just MUCH easier to reconcile the religion with creationism than evolution. It's a much neater package. you end up with doctrinal problems with evolution that are nearly impossible to address in a rational way. Without, and you'll hate this, making things up.

The creationists do it to reality, the theistic evolutionists do it to doctrine. I simply take it on faith.

Now if that doesn't work in your supposedly rational brain I simply don't know what will. And that is the truth and it's all that matters.

Ok Ed we can go that route also. Virtually all Christian doctrine maintains that of original sin. It makes the resurrection meaningful.

Evolution provides a direct challenge to this, that I discussed with one of the authors you mentioned. He said it was difficult to reconcile with original sin, to his credit he admitted it. Now I appreciate the honesty, he basically said he didn't know how it worked. He was just guessing.

That is what I think DC is getting at, there is an equal amount of absurd thinking on each side of the coin. But that the majority of Christian doctrines work better with a special creation.

Well at least now you're referring to a "majority of Christian doctrines" instead of "Christian doctrine", as though there was only one and anything outside of that is a distortion of Christianity. That's a start. This conversation is getting us nowhere, I suggest we end it.

There are examples of such but evolution doesn't touch on all of them.

Ed I actually agree with much of what you have said, you just seem to get hung up on words such as 'twisted' and doctrine. It's my fault, of course I realize there is not 1 single aspect of my faith that is consistent across the board.

It is bothersome, I didn't feel the need to address all of that in this discussion however.

It doesn't change the fact that evolution is a challenge to many doctrines in many churches.

But your correct-for once- I've had enough.:-)