…and this is a 
An Oxford research fellow, Andrew Parker, has written a bizarre little book claiming that the book of Genesis is entirely compatible with science and evolution…by simply redefining most of the terms in the Bible after the fact to fit. You know the sort of thing I'm talking about: "Let there be light" is a perfect description of the big bang, by "grass" god really meant "cyanobacteria", the appearance of lights in the sky refers to the evolution of animal vision, etc., etc., etc., yadda yadda yadda. It's ridiculous, of course, mere post hoc retrofitting of valid interpretations to a pile of bronze age bogosity. This is what happens when scientists try to combine old superstitions with real science.
I know of Parker from another connection, too: he's the author of the Light-Switch Hypothesis, described in his book, In the Blink of an Eye. That was the idea that the trigger for the Cambrian explosion was the evolution of vision, which I'd thought might have been an interesting component, but was burdened with far too heavy a load of speculation and a suspicious reliance on single causes. This does explain some of the pseudo-biblical rhapsodies in that book, though.
Life Science
Comments
Posted by: MikeMa | July 18, 2009 10:49 AM
bogosity? Yet another new word. They are going to have to name an edition of the OED after you pretty soon PZ.
Posted by: Kel, OM | July 18, 2009 10:54 AM
And that bit about making the earth on day one before the big bang? Yep, perfectly compatible.
And people wonder why the reconciliation between science and religion is ridiculed by a certain portion of the atheist community...
Posted by: SEF | July 18, 2009 10:54 AM
Surely that should be "mere post hoc retrofitting of vapid interpretations".
Though of course "post hoc retrofitting" is a tautology and you could chuck one of them away. However, there's still probably more meaningful content in your post than in Andrew Parker's book!
Posted by: debaser71 | July 18, 2009 10:55 AM
IMO it's not always a bad thing when religious people reconcile their religious views with a modern understanding of the world. Consider it step one in a deconversion process.
Posted by: burns in buffalo | July 18, 2009 10:59 AM
What is the point of these attempts to redefine the Bible scientifically?
Theology is not biology.
Literature and ancient folk belief are not theory.
Posted by: Krystalline Apostate | July 18, 2009 11:01 AM
Good old Loki's wager. The religious use it so often, they'd be lost w/o it. Oh wait...they're already lost.Posted by: dmso74 | July 18, 2009 11:02 AM
Parker's scientific work has consistently been terrible, and I have always wondered how it got published, much less how he got where he is today. Blink of an eye had an interesting idea but was written in such a pompous manner I couldn't get past the first few pages. this meltdown comes as no big surprise.
Posted by: Slugboi | July 18, 2009 11:02 AM
Good use of the word "bogosity"!
Posted by: Darren Garrison | July 18, 2009 11:04 AM
"The Genesis Enigma"-- I coin thee "The Genesis Enema."
Posted by: RT | July 18, 2009 11:06 AM
Oh yeh, I came across this one in Waterstones yesterday. Absolute rubbish of course, but slightly interesting to try to understand the psychology of someone who can be a research fellow at Oxford and for the Royal Society, and yet manage to compartmentalise so much that he claimed the bit in Genesis 1 about sea creatures being created the day before land animals was correct for the way things evolved, but completely ignored the large cetacean in the works: i.e. it mentions WHALES. He even used the translation that specifically mentions sea mammals.
Posted by: Jerry Coyne | July 18, 2009 11:06 AM
Actually, Michael Ruse wrote that book, too. It's called "Can a Darwinian Be a Christian?", and its thesis is that every tenet of conservative Christianity is really immanent in Darwinism and science. E.g.,
"soul" = intelligence and moral choice
"resurrection of Jesus" = he was just in a trance
"Lazarus brought back to life" = in a trance as well
. . . ad nauseum
I reviewed this execrable production at http://www.lrb.co.uk/v24/n09/coyn01_.html
Posted by: Criswell | July 18, 2009 11:07 AM
A tired spin on "Post hoc ergo propter hoc" but now with moar Oxfurd!
Posted by: Becca Stareyes
|
July 18, 2009 11:09 AM
Well, at least it's a step above the literalists in that Parker realizes that there is a massive body of evidence that indicates that the universe came into being in a certain way and progressed in a certain way, and the uncertainties are not at all compatible with a literal interpretation of Genesis*. And that it's easier to change religious beliefs than to change the evidence. And that rejecting things like the Big Bang or evolution by natural selection in favor of 'God can do whatever He wants and make it look like whatever he wants'**, makes it hard to admit that anything should be explainable by materialism. (I mean, if you assume that a deity created the universe in such a way that it looks natural, then what's to stop Him/Her/It/Them from suddenly deciding to muck about with physics on a daily basis. In the words of a cartoon crackpot, 'fairies can make two plus two equal fish'.)
* Or really, every creation myth I've read.
** Which would still be a step up from the average literalist, who seem to insist that the science backs up a literal reading of their creation myth despite the fact that they have to come up with increasingly bizarre justifications and that the vast majority scientists strongly disagree with them.
Posted by: Josh
|
July 18, 2009 11:13 AM
*yawn*
And of course Teh Flud was some local disturbance, right? I wonder which event he is trying to assert is The One.
Posted by: matt | July 18, 2009 11:17 AM
so...what is lunacy compatible with? answer: religion
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L9EVMzVQKTk
Posted by: 'Tis Himself
|
July 18, 2009 11:21 AM
I like this comment in Zeno's blog:
Posted by: OurDeadSelves | July 18, 2009 11:25 AM
I love how these people who try to make religion "fit" with current scientific understandings only succeed in watering down their own religion (which I'm sure isn't their intention.)
Give it a rest, guys. Just come over to the dark side. It's way more fun here anyway.
Posted by: paul haine | July 18, 2009 11:27 AM
Huh. I read In the Blink of an Eye and another book by Parker, Seven Deadly Colours, and really enjoyed both of them, though I don't have a scientific background so would struggle to spot any particular flaws with them. It's so hard to keep up.
Genesis Enigma does sound like utter bobbins, though.
Posted by: Mozglubov | July 18, 2009 11:33 AM
That's why I know that name!!! He wrote In the Blink of an Eye! I read that book... it was interesting, although there were parts I was dubious about. Still, I liked it because it talked a lot about the evolution of the eye, and a guy where I was working at the time was trying to convince me the eye couldn't have evolved...
Posted by: Woof | July 18, 2009 11:39 AM
New? Not so much. I've got a nice 2nd generation bogometer right here next to me. (I fried my 1st one when I used it on Expelled.)
Posted by: JD | July 18, 2009 11:45 AM
This technique works with Moby Dick too.
Posted by: xebecs | July 18, 2009 11:52 AM
Can I really be first with the relevant bit from Firefly?
Posted by: Josh
|
July 18, 2009 11:57 AM
*reads #22*
*nods in approval and claps*
Posted by: Dania
|
July 18, 2009 12:01 PM
What? Birds, cattle and homo sapiens separated from animals? No animals before birds? And cattle, domesticated animals, somehow came before homo sapiens? And he says this is "in the right order"?
Makes...no...sense.
Posted by: Seamyst | July 18, 2009 12:05 PM
So... he's retconning?
Posted by: Lotharloo | July 18, 2009 12:35 PM
Mooney and Kirshenbaum must be so happy. This is exactly the solution they proposed.
Posted by: tsg | July 18, 2009 12:37 PM
It's been around for awhile. The bible is a well known bogon emitter.
Posted by: H.H. | July 18, 2009 12:45 PM
Several people have commented how this type of liberal non-literal reading of Genesis is a step above a fundamentalist literal interpretation, but I just don't see it. Consider the two positions.
Parker's aim is to protect the bible's overall veracity. Just like the fundamentalist, Parker recognizes that if the bible is flatly wrong on a subject as important as the origins of our Universe and life on our planet, then any pretense that the bible is the inspired word of god becomes greatly suspect. Since Parker wants his religious faith in the truth of the bible to appear reasonable and not a form of insanity, he has to misrepresent what the bible actually says. He must stretch and deform the text of Genesis (in order to fit the known scientific facts) that it becomes absurdly unrecognizable. And even for all that effort and rearranging, odd and ends still stick out from under the furniture cloth, as RT points out in #10 about the whales. It just doesn't work.
Fundamentalists, for all their own dishonesty about the state of the scientific evidence, at least recognize the utter failure of this type of reinterpretation. It's messy, implausible, incomplete, and ultimately unconvincing. They understand that either the bible means what it says in plain language and is factually correct, or it's just another ancient religious text with no special claim to truth.
Both positions need the bible to be true. Fundamentalists maintain this by denying the scientific evidence, by shutting out reality. But their reasoning is sound. Empirical facts must support the bible in order to make the claim that the bible is true.
Liberal theologians, however, acknowledge empirical reality but then deny reason itself. Facts are accepted, but then distorted through such a hall of broken mirrors that they become nearly unrecognizable. Notions of consistency and plausibility are given no consideration, the only thing of importance being to make the miraculous appear possible, by whatever means, and thereby avoid the sensible, reasonable conclusion in every case (that the bible is invented myth).
So which is actually the bigger intellectual sin? To deny "mere facts?" Or to pervert reason itself? Factual inaccuracy may be corrected, but it is wholly impossible to reason with a person who denies reason itself. And that's why I don't see liberal theologians as "a step above" fundamentalists. In fact, I believe their sort of intellectual dishonesty poses the larger danger to our collective Enlightenment values. Beware the person who defends an unfalsifiable "truth," for they are the real enemies of reason and the entire scientific enterprise.
Posted by: apoLOLgetics | July 18, 2009 12:53 PM
What an Obi Wan Kenobi.
("So you see Luke, what I said before about your father was correct... from a certain point of view.")
Posted by: Rey Fox | July 18, 2009 1:00 PM
Meanwhile, all the good metaphors in the world cringe and facepalm. There goes another painfully stretched metaphor, ruining the reputation of metaphors everywhere.
Even when I was in college and thus susceptible to these sorts of rationalizations, they still rang hollow to me.
Posted by: Canuck | July 18, 2009 1:09 PM
What is it with these guys? I have a couple of Brit friends and more Brit acquaintances who are science faculty who have these crazy religious views. How do they hold this cognitive dissonance in their heads without their bursting?
Posted by: Citizen of the Cosmos
|
July 18, 2009 1:12 PM
Well its useless anyway, because the only way to know the nature is to study it with the tools of science.
Posted by: Jim Lippard | July 18, 2009 1:14 PM
MikeMa (#1): "bogosity" goes back at least to the old "jargon file" (also published as the "Hacker's Dictionary"), which says it originated at CMU.
The unit of bogosity is the lenat, named after AI researcher Douglas Lenat. As has already been noted, it's measured with a bogometer.
Posted by: bsk | July 18, 2009 1:18 PM
I have great respect for the idea of the university system - the sciences in particular - but in reality there are a startling number of mediocre people who've risen to the top simply by jumping through all the right hoops. And these people, whether intentionally or not, are almost always the ones who maintain tradition and are resistant to new ideas.
Yes, my anecdotal evidence of one university doesn't prove anything. I'd be interested to hear if anyone else has noticed the same thing.
Posted by: Marcus Ranum | July 18, 2009 1:21 PM
@H.H.
Well said!
That's a good frame: if you're reinterpreting the bible, you know it's at least somewhat wrong; why not consider the likely explanation that it's all wrong?
Posted by: BibleSmith | July 18, 2009 1:22 PM
"It's ridiculous, of course, mere post hoc retrofitting of valid interpretations to a pile of bronze age bogosity. This is what happens when scientists try to combine old superstitions with real science."
Still its gratifying to see they are changing Bronze Age flim-flam to fit valid science and not vice versa.
Posted by: Mark A. Siefert | July 18, 2009 1:36 PM
@apoLOLogetics #29
Kenobi: "So you see Luke, what I said before about your father was correct... from a certain point of view."
Luke "No, Ben. It's because George Lucas can't write his way out of a paper bag and is making this shit up as he goes along! The next thing you're going to tell me is... oh.... Leia is my sister!"
Kenobi: "Well...ummmm... now that you mention it..."
Posted by: Infidel753 | July 18, 2009 1:55 PM
I've heard people make this kind of claim several times.
Of course, the label on the box of tea-bags I'm looking at right now is a perfectly accurate historical record of the Russian Revolution -- if I get to re-define all the words on it any way I want.
Posted by: tsg | July 18, 2009 1:57 PM
The smallest known particle of which is called a "bogon".
Posted by: Infidel753 | July 18, 2009 1:58 PM
I've heard people make this kind of claim several times.
Of course, the label on the box of tea-bags I'm looking at right now is a perfectly accurate historical record of the Russian Revolution -- if I get to re-define all the words on it any way I want.
Posted by: Shane McKee | July 18, 2009 1:58 PM
It's just such a facepalm. Even if people are Christians, they need to realise that Genesis IS A MYTH. The staggering irony is that Genesis was slotted together in the 8th century BCE when every nation had several creation myths (in Genesis we have two) - it is very very likely that the people who wrote these stories down were perfectly aware that they were just stories, even if they had no clue as to how the world began. Certainly the Babylonians didn't *believe* Gilgamesh. STORIES, folks!
Next thing, parker will be writing that Alice in Wonderland presages bioinformatics.
Posted by: Zeno | July 18, 2009 1:59 PM
I'm guessing that it's a Church of England thing. After you've grown up in a church that can't decide whether it's Catholicism Lite or Protestantism Lite, and keeps trying to paper over its origin as King Henry VIII's iron-clad whim, painful rationalization has become a way of life.
Posted by: Infidel753 | July 18, 2009 2:01 PM
I've heard people make this kind of claim several times.
Of course, the label on the box of tea-bags I'm looking at right now is a perfectly accurate historical record of the Russian Revolution -- if I get to re-define all the words on it any way I want.
Posted by: TLP | July 18, 2009 2:02 PM
Bible reinterpretation sounds a lot like that old russian Joke:
- The radio announces: Ivan has won a Mercedes!
- Clarification 1: It wasn't a Mercedes, it was a bike.
- Clarification 2: He didn't win it, it was stolen from him.
Posted by: maddogdelta | July 18, 2009 2:02 PM
Does this guy the have the Humpty Dumpty Chair of Language Re-Definement at Oxford?
Posted by: TLP | July 18, 2009 2:06 PM
Bible reinterpretation sounds a lot like that old russian Joke:
- The radio announces: Ivan has won a Mercedes!
- Clarification 1: It wasn't a Mercedes, it was a bike.
- Clarification 2: He didn't win it, it was stolen from him.
Posted by: SEF | July 18, 2009 2:17 PM
Indeed. More damningly than that (in terms of the evident lack of intelligence / sense of biblical literalists) is the fact that even the NT part of the bible includes blatant hints that it's all about telling stories - in the way that the characters in it constantly resort to parable rather than giving straight answers to questions.
Posted by: Brian | July 18, 2009 2:25 PM
Ssh! Don't let the cat out of the bag; it's not going to be released for another six months!
Posted by: MTGAP | July 18, 2009 2:35 PM
Interpreting the Bible to fit science is better than ignoring science completely.
Posted by: Caine | July 18, 2009 2:37 PM
Infidel753 @ 43:
I think this varies depending on the type of tea. My box of PG Tips says something about the Four Motorcyclists of the Apocalypse...
Posted by: MikeMa | July 18, 2009 3:15 PM
Jim@33 & tsg @several
I am humbled by the growth of language I have missed. Hard to believe such useful additions flew under my radar. My irony meter budget is already maxed out and now you tell me I need to spring for a bogometer. Keeping up is so expensive...
Posted by: xebecs | July 18, 2009 3:28 PM
And I've heard people make THAT claim several times...
Posted by: eddie | July 18, 2009 3:47 PM
I see from parker's biog page at ox that his research is partly funded by the james s mcdonnel foundation 'aiming to improve the quality of life through scholarship'.
Hmmm. Must have written this guff in his spare time.
Posted by: Didac Lopez-Martinez
|
July 18, 2009 3:55 PM
Euhemerus was a ancient Greek phylologus that tried to do the same with Greek myths. Euhemerus tried to rationalize the role of gods and goddesses presenting them as a reflection of a truly existing pre-Achaic élite. For Euhemerus Zeus was the reflection of an ancient conqueror of Greece. It is not a complete insany because ancient Cretans showed a place to be the "Zeus' tomb". However, the problem is that euhemerism can work if the mythic times are not chronologically separated from historical times. For example, the historial Dorian invasion can be related to the myth of "returning Heraklids".
Euhemerism has been used, for example, to explain the origin of Israel. The Tribe patriarchs have been interpreted to be a later invention to justify the alliance of several West Semitic Tribes to form Israel in perhaps 12th o 13th centuries BC.
But it is an insanity to introduce Euhemerism in the first chapters of Genesis. The origins of the Universe and Humankind are universally coped by all kind of mythologies in very different manners. Only through a kind of Mediterranean-centrism, one can grant privilege to the Hebrew Bible. The account of Genesis deserves study in Compared Mythology. It has no sense to Euhemerize it. Euhemerizing only applies if a core of truth lays on it. But the author of the Genesis simply adapted an elegant Babylonian a posterior explanation for World origins. The original Mesopotamic myth, moreover, was not intended to explain the Origin of the World but the continuous functioning of the World, and in that sense it was later interpreted by Thales in his idea of "Water as Archan".
Posted by: Brian English | July 18, 2009 4:14 PM
(off topic)
PZ, here's an example of how inclusive and sharing religions are:
http://www.theage.com.au/national/church-and-state-clash-over-equality-laws-20090718-dozx.html
Posted by: amphiox | July 18, 2009 4:17 PM
Wait, wait - 'Alice in Wonderland' DOESN'T presage bioinformatics?
Damn.
Posted by: Woof | July 18, 2009 4:23 PM
Mr. Mac (I used to work for him) was something of a woo enthusiast. He funded a fair amount of "paranormal research", and named his aircraft such things as Banshee, Goblin, Demon, Phantom (twice, the second one almost called Satan, Mithras, or Spectre), and Voodoo.
Posted by: amphiox | July 18, 2009 4:41 PM
It should be noted that one can guess the overall order of creation using common sense alone, ie you can't have fishes before you have water, more complex organisms probably came after less complex ones, etc.
Any 10 year old child could do it as an act of pure imagination, and the general sequence will be somewhat close to reality, close enough that some generous post-hoc refitting of the words would make it match.
Posted by: Rick Schauer | July 18, 2009 4:47 PM
I think Leon Festinger would scream, "cognitive dissonance" as an appropriate explaination for tripe such as this.
Posted by: MB | July 18, 2009 4:54 PM
Pardon me for attempting to hijack a thread, but on
Daily Kos: This Week in Science
DarkSyde links to
What Questions Can Science Answer
SOME of you guys are a lot smarter than me, but isn't DarkSyde linking to someone agreeing with Myers et. al. while wringing his hands that both the Colgate Twins and Myers are right?
Posted by: MB | July 18, 2009 4:57 PM
Pardon me for attempting to hijack a thread, but on
Daily Kos: This Week in Science
DarkSyde links to
What Questions Can Science Answer
SOME of you guys are a lot smarter than me, but isn't DarkSyde linking to someone agreeing with Myers et. al. while wringing his hands that both the Colgate Twins and Myers are right?
Posted by: MB | July 18, 2009 5:00 PM
Pardon me for attempting to hijack a thread, but on
Daily Kos: This Week in Science
DarkSyde links to
What Questions Can Science Answer
SOME of you guys are a lot smarter than me, but isn't DarkSyde linking to someone agreeing with Myers et. al. while wringing his hands that both the Colgate Twins and Myers are right?
Posted by: MB | July 18, 2009 5:02 PM
Pardon me for attempting to hijack a thread, but on
Daily Kos: This Week in Science
DarkSyde links to
What Questions Can Science Answer
SOME of you guys are a lot smarter than me, but isn't DarkSyde linking to someone agreeing with Myers et. al. while wringing his hands that both the Colgate Twins and Myers are right?
Posted by: The Tim Channel
|
July 18, 2009 5:05 PM
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-1200485/What-got-smile-Meet-squid-looks-happy.html
Posted by: Muffin | July 18, 2009 5:06 PM
Ah, good old Humpty-Dumptism.
"When I use a word," Humpty Dumpty said in rather a scornful tone, "it means just what I choose it to mean - neither more nor less."
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | July 18, 2009 5:09 PM
MB read the error message please.
Posted by: MB | July 18, 2009 5:14 PM
Pardon me for attempting to hijack a thread, but on
Daily Kos: This Week in Science
DarkSyde links to
What Questions Can Science Answer
SOME of you guys are a lot smarter than me, but isn't DarkSyde linking to someone agreeing with Myers et. al. while wringing his hands that both the Colgate Twins and Myers are right?
Posted by: Nomen Nescio | July 18, 2009 5:23 PM
i wonder; is there any good evidence to think vision hadn't already evolved by then? or at least some simple photosensitivity, along the line of clams' "eyes".
Posted by: blf | July 18, 2009 5:28 PM
SOME of us can also read the boldfaced message asking you not to post again. Others have enough sense to look and see what happened rather than blindly hitting the post button again and again and again and again and again…
Posted by: MB | July 18, 2009 5:28 PM
Pardon me for attempting to hijack a thread, but on
Daily Kos: This Week in Science
DarkSyde links to
What Questions Can Science Answer
SOME of you guys are a lot smarter than me, but isn't DarkSyde linking to someone agreeing with Myers et. al. while wringing his hands that both the Colgate Twins and Myers are right?
Posted by: MB | July 18, 2009 5:32 PM
Pardon me for attempting to hijack a thread, but on
Daily Kos: This Week in Science
DarkSyde links to
What Questions Can Science Answer
SOME of you guys are a lot smarter than me, but isn't DarkSyde linking to someone agreeing with Myers et. al. while wringing his hands that both the Colgate Twins and Myers are right?
Posted by: PZ Myers
|
July 18, 2009 5:36 PM
Current threshold for insta-banning for too many reposts is 15. Let's hope MB actually looks at the thread before the hammer comes down.
Posted by: Caine | July 18, 2009 5:40 PM
Oh, for sweet fucking mercy's sake, MB, stop!
Posted by: Alyson Miers | July 18, 2009 5:42 PM
PUBLIC SERVICE ANNOUNCEMENT:
If you see an error message after hitting the POST button...
DO NOT HIT POST AGAIN.
HIT "BACK" AND THEN "RELOAD." YOUR COMMENT WILL APPEAR.
If you are concerned your comment will be lost, copy the text into Notepad or equivalent until you see that your comment appears.
This is a PSA from Concerned Posters for Wise Use of Bandwidth. I'm not clever enough at the moment to come up with a snarky acronym.
(Now, let's see if Scienceblogs decides to hiccup and auto-post this comment five times just to make me look like an ass.)
Posted by: Steve Zara | July 18, 2009 5:46 PM
This is very sad.
I enjoyed "In the Blink of an Eye", even though a significant fraction of it was nonsense.
Posted by: Matt Penfold | July 18, 2009 5:55 PM
Marmite.
They use marmite to fill the cracks in their head.
Posted by: XD | July 18, 2009 5:55 PM
I think the error message one always seems to get after posting a comment is just too subtle for some people. How about changing the font-size to "kick-ass", the font colour to "florescent", and reviving the use of the <blink> tag? maybe some audio accompaniment, too?
Posted by: 'Tis Himself
|
July 18, 2009 6:02 PM
MB is currently at seven. Can our boy (or girl) persevere for just eight more reposts? The current odds are 8 to 1 that he makes it.
Posted by: eddie | July 18, 2009 6:02 PM
On the subject of errors, PZ, didn't you say sommat about getting new servers?
I can post most days but now I'm not seeing any Random Quote. I'm never sure wether the problems I see are due to my mobile phone browser or the haruhn yahoos' dDoS attack.
Posted by: 'Tis Himself
|
July 18, 2009 6:04 PM
Eddie,
The random quote appears to be gone, sacrificed to appease the SB technoweenie god.
Posted by: eddie | July 18, 2009 6:06 PM
I thought that insta-banning offences included linking to the misogynist kos.
Posted by: Matt Penfold | July 18, 2009 6:06 PM
It is almost (but only almost) a pity McCarthy thinks he is banned from here. I am pretty sure he could beat any record for repeated postings. I have never come across someone with such inability to comprehend what he is reading so I seriously the message about not posting again would sink in with him.
Posted by: Sle | July 18, 2009 6:08 PM
In the Blink of an Eye is a good book you have to hand it to Walter Murch.
Not so much for Back to Oz though.
Oh, different book!
Posted by: MadScientist | July 18, 2009 6:13 PM
But ... he's at Oxford, which means ... he's at Oxford - I'm sure the bible says so somewhere.
@matt 15: Nah, religion isn't compatible with religion even if many of them agree on things like "everyone else will go to hell". They may deserve eachother, but they're not compatible.
Posted by: Owlmirror | July 18, 2009 6:40 PM
You know....
There are a lot of myths, legends, animal folktales, and other just-so stories, told by many peoples in many times and many places, of the "origin" of the sun, the moon, and the stars, after the existence of life.
So, are all of these stories meant to "really" be about the evolutionary origin of vision?
And we can even see "evolution" being hinted at. Raven becomes a pine needle ("cyanobacteria") before being born as an infant ("metazoa") who steals the sun and turns back into raven, who flies up with the sun and places it in the sky ("evolution of vision").
Pure wootonium.
Posted by: No BS | July 18, 2009 6:42 PM
That's it.
I'm writing some bullshit on parchment, and burying it so I can totally fuck up the future.
Shit... some guy is at my door asking me if a want a stress test.
Posted by: D | July 18, 2009 6:48 PM
Umm, no. The unit of bogosity is the microlenat. The lenat is considered too large for practical use.
Posted by: Woof | July 18, 2009 7:05 PM
#64 re: piglet squid
SQUID BACON!!!
Posted by: xebecs | July 18, 2009 7:32 PM
No, but posting something as stupid as the quote above ought to be. What entity do you think is misogynistic, anyway -- the web site Daily Kos, its diarists and readers? or the proprietor of the site, Markos Moulitsas Zuniga? In either case, you are full of shit.
FYI, xebecs = Michelle (female), who is going to the Netroots Nation conference (sponsored by Daily Kos) in Pittsburg next month.
Posted by: Kirlian Hurley | July 18, 2009 7:43 PM
--Matt Ridley, on the back flyleaf of In the Blink of an Eye, by Andrew Parker. Well, that's good enough for me!Posted by: Watchman | July 18, 2009 7:51 PM
Nah. Not new. A classic. I swear that one goes back to my high school days, if not even further. (Class of '75 here.)
Posted by: 'Tis Himself
|
July 18, 2009 8:01 PM
It says something about McCarthy that he was bragging how he'd been banned, PZ tells him he isn't banned, and McCarthy basically calls PZ a liar.
Posted by: Canuck | July 18, 2009 8:17 PM
I have to agree with H.H. That's a very well considered post. I also think that in the long run the placatheists are a bigger problem (sorry, I think this term is better than "faithiests" - captures the sense of the stance better).
Posted by: Teddydeedodu | July 18, 2009 8:24 PM
"The unit of bogosity is the lenat, named after AI researcher Douglas Lenat. As has already been noted, it's measured with a bogometer."
Additions:
1. Bogosology - is the study of bogosisms
2. Bogostheists - are the practitioners
3. The study of the psychology of Bogostheists still fall under Scatology
Posted by: Michael Kingsford Gray | July 18, 2009 8:45 PM
In a single stroke, my opinion of Andrew Parker has gone from Hero to Zero.
It surely cannot be the same person?
Posted by: steve | July 18, 2009 8:46 PM
@41
Been done (sort of): Automated Alice is a fantastical book by British author Jeff Noon, first published in 1996. The book follows Alice's travels to a future Manchester city populated by Newmonians, Civil Serpents and a vanishing cat.
The book was written as both the third book in the Vurt series and the "trequel" to the famous Lewis Carroll books, Alice's Adventures in Wonderland and Through the Looking-Glass.
Posted by: eddie | July 18, 2009 8:58 PM
xebecs, you evidently haven't been on the receiving end of sexually explicit death threats and been told to "grow a pair and shut up" by someone to whom the real problem is that you are not male.
Thanks for being honest about the financial interest, though.
Posted by: tim Rowledge | July 18, 2009 9:14 PM
Even if people are Christians, they need to realise that
Genesisthe whole bible IS A MYTH.That's more like it.
Posted by: tim Rowledge | July 18, 2009 9:18 PM
Oh and thinking of lunacy, apparently today is the anniversary of the dogma of papal infallibility (1870).
Posted by: notedscholar | July 18, 2009 9:21 PM
Wait a minute, you'd rather Dr. Parker not use science? I'm confused. If the Bible is scientifically accurate, then it just is. Even retrofitted truth is truth. This is an axiom of logic.
NS
Posted by: Stanton
|
July 18, 2009 9:26 PM
But the Bible is not scientifically accurate.
Posted by: Pikemann Urge | July 18, 2009 9:47 PM
We have had three posters in this thread who have not read the error message (or have only noticed it the second/third time around). I wonder if this kind of behaviour is fundamental to understanding why humans don't progress as quickly as they could. Heck, I'm guilty of it, too, or have been.
People can't/don't read signs. They're so fixated on what they want to do, they can't stop and smell the flowers along the way. Lighten up, everyone!
Posted by: xebecs | July 18, 2009 10:00 PM
eddie: No, I haven't been threatened with death. If you have been, that's an issue. I'll leave it at that.
However, you misapprehended what I meant about "sponsored by Daily Kos". *I* am not sponsored by Daily Kos -- the conference is. *I* am paying my own money to go. So there is no financial interest.
Posted by: eddie | July 18, 2009 10:18 PM
Then I apologise for impugning you.
The threat wasn't to me but I was one of a number of people disturbed by kos's reaction.
Anyway, I've 'jacked the thread enough with this and should go to bed.
BTW - the cosmicvariance post linked was very good.
Posted by: MoeLarryAndJesus | July 19, 2009 12:39 AM
In Genesis plants are created before the sun is.
This is amusing, but fundies don't see a problem with it.
Posted by: Kel, OM | July 19, 2009 12:54 AM
Yeah, it's really bad. When a theist says that genesis lines up with cosmology, I point out that the sun came before the earth and not the other way around and that there have been stars for 9 billion years before the earth was formed. It just doesn't line up!It's really pathetic that people try to reconcile genesis with modern science. Genesis is mythology, by trying to read it as God's word is to miss the entire point for what it is. It's humans trying to understand nature and their place in it, not divine authorship. By trying to adhere to a divine source for their holy book, all that it demonstrates is the relationship between the bible and their beliefs.
It's really easy to be a strong atheist in regard to Christianity when that is their argument. There's no deeper truth to Genesis, no greater meaning. There's just the obvious meaning we apply to every other culture's mythology but forego when it comes to Christianity.
Posted by: Mick | July 19, 2009 1:46 AM
A pity. I really liked In the Blink of an Eye.
Posted by: Juan | July 19, 2009 2:07 AM
PZMeyrs is probably very good teacher but lets face it for this kind of arrogance you need weight of a first class scientist.
Posted by: arachnophilia
|
July 19, 2009 2:56 AM
@tim Rowledge: (#98)
no, the original statement is correct. speaking in terms of literary genre, genesis is a myth, and there are a great many literary tools that lets critics know this rather plain truth. you are simply conflating "myth" and "baised/factually incorrect." and there are certainly sections of the bible that don't really fit that category very well. "myth" would not be the right term for a book like psalms, or song of songs. those are poetics. job appears to be a philosophical argument. kings an (extremely biased and flawed) history. ruth a novella (that doesn't even involve this god character). to say that "the entire bible is a myth" is to make one of the same mistakes as the fundamentalists: thinking the bible is at all unified in any way.
anyhow. the kind of reading that OP is about is greatly destructive to the text, completely betraying any (cultural) meaning the myth may have had. and it does not fit the text in the slightest, if you actually look at it. frankly, anything will fit anything else if you lop off enough sides, push hard enough, and then squint your eyes a little while you look at the results.
@Kel, OM: (#106)
well, there's the etiology of shabbat. it's kind of important if you're jewish. but i think people of any judeo-christian faith would do well to acknowledge that the stories are mythological etiologies, and factually inaccurate at that. it would save a lot of trouble, in cases like these. no more bending over backwards, betraying the meaning and purpose of the story, to get the silly factual claims to line up. it's just wrong, and people should get over it.
Posted by: June | July 19, 2009 10:52 AM
It is easy to laugh at Genesis, given today's knowledge. But scientific historians must consider the culture of the time period they are reviewing. Assume, for example, that it is 5000 years ago, you are the wise man of the village, and some shepherds bring you a 3-foot dinosaur femur they dug out of a mountainside. Might you not reasonably conclude that "there were giants in the earth"?
As an interesting exercise, try writing your own explanation of how the Earth began and how life was established on it. Use only observations and facts known 5000 years ago to dwellers of the Middle East. Use only words available in the ancient languages, without concepts such as "dinosaur", "fossil", or "galaxy". Remember also that if you contradict the current village religion, you will be killed for insulting the gods.
Posted by: 'Tis Himself
|
July 19, 2009 11:10 AM
June,
Our problem with Genesis is that it's a myth. A not particularly imaginative myth, stolen from the Babylonians with the serial numbers filed off, and 2500 years old but still a myth. The trouble is that certain people nowadays claim that it's reality.
We don't object to Genesis as myth. We do object to it when paraded as a supposed "scientific theory."
Posted by: SEF | July 19, 2009 11:38 AM
That doesn't excuse them.
The correct, ie honest and useful, behaviour would have been to say that they'd found a big bone and X thought that might mean there were giant humans, whereas the annoyingly pedantic Y pointed out that the anatomy was all wrong. However, all they ever did (as far as oral history, belatedly written down, preserves) was make up lies/stories to tell themselves while completely ditching any mention of objective evidence which might originally have inspired those tales.
They were just habitual, societal liars. It's not possible for an intellectually honest person to respect them for that. They weren't properly using even what limited abilities they had.
Posted by: Tulse | July 19, 2009 11:51 AM
June, the problem isn't the scientists, it's the believers who think that the collection of explanations and stories written thousands of years ago must be accurate because it is the Word of God.
Posted by: Owlmirror | July 19, 2009 2:00 PM
Have you read Adrienne Mayor's The First Fossil Hunters?
In the Middle East and Europe, at least, it would have more likely been the bone of some giant mammal (a relative of elephants, or giraffes, or elk, or hippos, or rhinos, or perhaps an aurochs or a cave bear) than a dinosaur.
That makes the task impossible. I might be able to explain how they could make the observations necessary to confirm some of what I might tell them -- but a lot of those observations are impossible without tools like telescopes and microscopes. If I can't provide them those tools, and teach them the math that they need to interpret the observations, I am pretty sure that it cannot be done.
Heh. All of those words are from ancient languages. What's wrong with saying "thunder lizard", "buried thing dug up", or "milk way (of stars)"?
I've seen this game suggested before, but killing strangers just for having a different religion makes less sense in the ancient Middle East, where many cultures interacted with other cultures in trade networks, than it might in an isolated jungle tribe.
And for that matter, one of the points gleaned from reading about the archaeology of Israel is that the ancient Middle East did not have a unified religion. So if I honestly say that the stars and the sun existed before the Earth and moon formed, I might gain the support of the faction that worshipped the sun and the stars, and annoy the ones that worship the moon, and definitely annoy the Yahwehists no matter what.
Can't win for losing.
Unless I get to take a shotgun with me. "Listen up, you primitive screwheads! This is my boomstick!"
Posted by: Rey Fox | July 19, 2009 2:13 PM
"It is easy to laugh at Genesis"
Fun, too!
Posted by: Rey Fox | July 19, 2009 2:35 PM
"PZMeyrs is probably very good teacher but lets face it for this kind of arrogance you need weight of a first class scientist."
No, he just has to be right.
Posted by: Holbach
|
July 19, 2009 5:05 PM
I have "In the Blink Of An Eye", read it and forgot about it, after the salient parts that smacked of biblical inferences made me shove it to the "I don't know" category of worthwhile books. Now that PZ has confirmed my suspicions I can look at and treat with the mild scorn it deserves. Francis Collins probably has read and owns it.
Posted by: Holbach
|
July 19, 2009 5:35 PM
@ 117
I should add that he wholeheartedly endorses the book for others of his accommodationist ilk. This is one of the books that will hold a prominent spot on his shelves at his new job NIH.
Posted by: Kel, OM | July 19, 2009 6:30 PM
The genesis myth is not 5000 years old, it's about 2500 years old. But that's a trivial point.The problem is that billions worldwide claim genesis as the word of god - that it has either literal or figurative meaning. As a myth, it is almost identical to the Babylonian story. The stories laid down in genesis are common among the middle eastern tribes. Now to look at it as myth is fine, the story at the time was similar to other stories from the area. The contention here is that people take it as the word of God - and that is an absurd statement.
Posted by: blf | July 19, 2009 6:47 PM
The written form of the myth is c.2500 years old. The oral form that predated it is, well, older, albeit I've no idea how old. The Wikipedia entry suggests that, in some cases, the oral form may date back to the 2nd millennium BCE.
Posted by: Bragimike | July 20, 2009 4:11 AM
I am de-lurking briefly (once again) to say that Andrew Parker is my cousin and was invited to my Wedding which is this Saturday. He has turned down the invitation as he's on a book tour. Now that I've seen the gist of the book he's promoting I don't know whether laugh or cry! Oh well, we'll have our godless ceremony and not worry about it.
Anyway, back to Wedding planning and lurking.
Posted by: arachnophilia
|
July 20, 2009 5:33 AM
@Kel, OM: (#119)
from your perspective, maybe not. from mine, it's actually fairly important. 600 BCE and 3000 BCE is the difference between bronze age (perhaps even neolithic) and iron age. between goat herders and a reasonably advanced society settled in city states. and more importantly, between what the fundies think about genesis and what it actually is. they suppose that it was written by moses, say, 1400 BCE or so. some even assume it was written by the very people it describes, adam and eve and their descendants, closer to 4000 BCE. those 2400 years are a BIG difference in where and when the book is coming from.
of course genesis has meaning, both figurative and literal. any text does. the problem is in claiming it to be the word of god, whatever that means, or in thinking it has truth, figurative or literal.
no. genesis is not one myth; it's a collection of myths. the creation myth, the one we're probably talking about here, is actually included twice in two separate myths, which are not even identical to each other let alone a secondary source. neither creation myth in genesis is "identical" to any other creation myth i'm aware of. however, there are a great many things the two myths in genesis have in common with babylonian mythology. and there are hints elsewhere in the bible at a third creation myth that seems have existed mostly in oral tradition, that also bears similarities to babylonian myths. now, the flood myth, i might say "identical" or "close to identical." but in any case, it is clear that there was a cultural relationship here, and that similar geographic, ethnic, religious and social climates influenced the writing of both sets of myths. along with most of the other mythologies of the area, btw.
@blf: (#120)
nor does anyone, for sure. people have placed some guesses, but this is the kind of thing that's notoriously difficult to nail down. all we can positively date are the texts themselves. and we can imply dates of original authorship from higher criticism of the contents. but the sources... it's just kind of hard to say, without anything more solid to go on.
genesis, or rather the torah, is comprised for several separate sources that have been stitched together. we can figures dates for those sources, and dates it was put together and redacted. but where those sources got their stuff is anyone's guess. some seems to draw from babylonian mythology in places -- but were they copying texts and modifying them? faithfully reporting an oral tradition that drew from those texts? some mix of the two? and were they influenced by earlier babylonian texts, or do the two share a common ancestor? etc.
Posted by: Happy | July 20, 2009 9:48 AM
There's tons of crappy books like these. Here's another:
http://www.amazon.co.uk/First-Six-Days-Nathan-Robertson/dp/1905809271/ref=sr_1_4?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1236357251&sr=8-4
I've coined an expression to describe this phenomenon: Its like trying to fit an elephant into a shoebox.
Posted by: Happy | July 20, 2009 9:51 AM
There's tons of crappy books like these. Here's another:
http://www.amazon.co.uk/First-Six-Days-Nathan-Robertson/dp/1905809271/ref=sr_1_4?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1236357251&sr=8-4
I've coined an expression to describe this phenomenon: Its like trying to fit an elephant into a shoebox.
Posted by: Kel, OM | July 20, 2009 10:03 AM
I should have been more explicit. The events laid out in genesis chapter one (which seem to be the focal point of discussion) are incredibly similar to the Babylonian "Creation Epic". The only key difference is that in the Babylonian Enuma Elish it speaks of the coexistence of the divine and cosmic matter as opposed to an act of creation. But the chronology in terms of light, firmament, land, liminaries, humans, and resting are in both stories in the same order.Point taken on the rest though.
Posted by: June | July 20, 2009 10:18 AM
Come on, people, my comment #110 did not depend on whether Genesis is 1 myth or 2 or 7, whether it is 5,000 or 2,500 years old, or whether it is inspired by God, Pot, or some Rabbi. My point was that Genesis attempted to explain how life began based on relatively primitive observations available at the time, with a careful nod to the religious authorities of the period.
And if Genesis was written to match the real world, it is not surprising that it sort of approximates the real world. In fact, Genesis could be viewed as the science of its period. Perhaps this view could help to defang the senseless war between science and religion, which has lately expanded into a schism among science blogs.
The fact that some people cling to "Genesis Science" even today is no surprise. Some also believe in Astrology, some deny the Holocaust or the Moon Landings, some see divine images in frozen waterfalls, toasted bread, and bird droppings.
All of religion is one continuous fallacy. The universe exists, therefore something must have created it. The universe looks designed, therefore something must have designed it. It runs like a watch, therefore a watchmaker designed it. Now let me see, where have I read this before......
Posted by: Owlmirror | July 20, 2009 12:16 PM
Huh? It was written (and edited) by the religious authorities of the period. No careful nods, but instead rather vigorous ones ("Of course we know what Yahweh/Elohim did! We're priests.")
Not unless you elevate all myths and legends of origins to the level of science.
Calling myth "science" dilutes the sense of a perfectly good word.
Um, no. In a way, we already have that, and it is the causus belli of the "war" itself. YECs, for example, see Genesis as being science, all right -- science that is still correct and valid. And they then go on to say that actual science isn't, if it contradicts YEC. OECs think that Genesis is science that needs some number massaging in order to work better with actual science. And so on.
Posted by: Stu
|
July 20, 2009 5:48 PM
My point was that Genesis attempted to explain how life began based on relatively primitive observations available at the time
Bullshit it did. It deliberately ignored swathes of scholarship by the Greeks, Romans, et cetera.
Posted by: arachnophilia
|
July 20, 2009 6:35 PM
@Kel, OM: (#125)
the enuma elis? no, no not at all. that third creation myth that seems to only exist in oral tradition and is hinted at in various places in the bible bears a much stronger relationship to the babylonian creation epic. that story is about the vengeful dragon leviyatan (tiamat) whose mate is killed by yahweh (ea). that similarity is almost certainly not a coincidence. but the enuma elis is a good deal longer, and doesn't deal with anything remotely like the hebrew creation epic.
no, this is actually one of the similarities. the two begin quite similarly:
compared to:
it's important to note that "deep" here is tehom which is possibly a cognate of tiamat. and that, in a good translation and in the original hebrew, genesis reflects the idea that matter, specifically water, exists before anything else happens. including god's creative act. this deep exists outside of god's creation. the two texts, however, diverge from there. however, they continue to describe similar cosmologies. flat disc-shaped earth, dome-shaped (solid) heavens, etc.
genesis 1 takes place over a week. the enuma elis is a good deal longer. the gods have time to have children and grandchildren.
the only chronological similarity is the division. genesis is divided into seven periods (literal days) and the enuma elis is divided into seven tablets. but even there, they don't line up. heaven is made on tablet 4, and day two of genesis. light is never explicitly created at all in the enuma elis. man is created on the sixth section of each text... but plants seem to be created somewhere in the sixth tablet as well, the third day of genesis. hard to tell, as most of the sixth is missing, but the opening of the seventh heralds their existence. as for resting... not so much? i can't find any such reference.
this is one of those tinfoil-hat type conspiracy theories, like those "christians stole jesus!" crackpots. there ARE similarities between the two texts, but they are in cultural background, view of cosmology, and the fact that both are steeped in religion. the enuma elis much more so, btw. they are not the same texts, not even in the slightest.
@June: (#126)
it was written to match the real world as it was understood by rabbis 2600 years ago. it would be quite surprising indeed if it matched what scientists knew of the real world today.
"genesis" is actually several texts. the creation story we're probably all talking about here, genesis 1, was almost certainly written by those religious authorities. it's part of the P document, "P" for "priestly." there are texts in the bible that were written outside of the religious authority, but most texts seem to have been written at least under the supervision or sponsorship of those religious authorities. society being what it was in 600 BCE judah and israel, it was sort of hard to escape.
@Owlmirror: (#127)
it does, i agree. but it was their explanative process. and if anything existed in the iron age that took the place of science, it was myth. but we should be careful about conflating the two, even linguistically. your point that follows, about YEC and OECs thinking genesis actually is science, is precisely why.
@Stu: (#128)
you do realize that the internet didn't exist in 600 BCE, right? and for that matter, neither did the roman empire. the first temple hebrews that wrote genesis might have had some contact with the greeks (people did travel) but they hardly would have had access to greek scholarship. and at the time, romulus and remus had just gotten around to starting a city, so we can't expect the romans to be much help there.
genesis shows exactly what we would expect for the time and place. lots of influence from levantine and sumerian sources (who thought the world was flat), almost no influence from greek sources (who knew the world to be round). it's not ignoring those sources; it's ignorant of them.
Posted by: Greta Christina | July 20, 2009 7:28 PM
I've also seen the argument that the phrase, "In the beginning," refers to the Big Bang. That, in fact, the inclusion of this phrase shows the miraculous accuracy of the Bible. No, really.
Posted by: 'Tis Himself
|
July 20, 2009 7:38 PM
So the phrase "once upon a time" means that something actually happened in the past, like Jack climbing a beanstalk and Goldilocks eating porridge.
Posted by: arachnophilia
|
July 21, 2009 1:21 AM
@Greta Christina: (#130)
yes, i've seen it too. it's really straining to get things to line up. AND it shows extremely poor critical analysis of the text itself. it doesn't even particularly fit what your average translation says, let alone represent what the author actually wrote in hebrew (or what it says in a good translation).
you see, the first word of genesis is more like a preposition. it's not "in the beginning" it's "in the beginning of..." it's just a relatively simple way to start a story, "when god began creating..." not some kind of explicit reference to the beginning of time.
really, the whole text reads very differently if you aren't attached to the idea of it being true, and try to pay attention to the linguistics and grammar of the text, and treat it just like any other myth.
@'Tis Himself: (#131)
i'm not sure that's exactly comparable. but it's close. it's part of the linguistic, intra-source reasons we have to treat genesis as a myth. there are also other inter-source reasons, such as the fact that the redactors saw fit to include two contradictory creation stories.
Posted by: Kel, OM | July 21, 2009 1:47 AM
I actually read it in a book by (now former) Christian theologian: John W Loftus. Though it's quite possible I misread what he wrote on the matter. I'm not arguing for a conspiracy, but surely it wouldn't be hard to see that there is some cross-fertilisation in regard to how the myth is presented now.Posted by: Mike | August 4, 2009 5:02 AM
“Andrew Parker is a Honorary Research Fellow of Green Templeton College at Oxford University.”
Yes, Templeton...
Nuff sed
Posted by: A. Jones | August 6, 2009 7:07 PM
It has been reported many time in the media that Andrew Parker is at Oxford- this is not true. Andrew Parker WAS at Oxford University some years ago. He has now left. He also worked at the Natural History Museum in london subsequently for a while ( he may still have some connection there) I believe he was last seen heading for a post in Australia...