What about the Bible?

  
Via:  TᵢG  •  2 months ago  •  70 comments

By:   Kent Frens, Jenni Brandon, Sandra Postel, and Ben McFarland (BioLogos)

What about the Bible?
Doesn't evolutionary creation contradict a plain reading of the Bible? Well, that depends on whose plain reading you mean.

To comment, please join group Religious and not News Chat

Religious and not News Chat

The essential message of this video is that it might be wiser to learn about the creator (if one exists) through its creations rather than attempting to find truth in collections of repeatedly transcribed / edited books written (and carried by oral tradition) over thousands of years by ancient men.


S E E D E D   C O N T E N T



Doesn't evolutionary creation contradict a plain reading of the Bible? Well, that depends on whose plain reading you mean. If we just open the Bible and read plainly for 21 st century Americans, we find lots of passages that contradict our beliefs and practice today: like the earth being set on pillars and the command not to wear clothing with two kinds of fabric. And even in the New Testament we reinterpret the plain readings of passages like the mustard seed being the smallest seed on earth and the frequent command to greet each other with a kiss.

2f31c63296ca8e8bf04c83fe56f8b813ac6fe98e

What about the Bible? - Resources - BioLogos

The Bible is a collection of sixty-six different books, written across a span of more than 1000 years by lots of different people in many different cultural settings. So understanding the meaning of the text is more complex than opening the latest English translation and reading the words.

There are clues in the Genesis creation accounts of a more profound message than we get from a plain reading. For example, notice the symmetrical way in which the text depicts the creation of spaces on the first three days and then populates those spaces on the next three days. These parallels suggest a stylistic rendering, rather than a direct journalistic reporting of facts. Notice too that there was day and night for three days before the sun was even created on day four.

And a straightforward reading of the sequence of creation in Genesis 1 and 2 doesn't correspond. Instead we need to look for something more profound.

A lot of scholarly work has been done to understand the ancient Near Eastern context of Genesis. This leads us at BioLogos to believe that God didn't use Scripture to reveal scientific truths. We think a serious and faithful reading of the Bible doesn't even address the science of evolution. Neither does it address photosynthesis, general relativity, or DNA. We won't learn about such things through more careful exegesis of Scripture.

What we do learn from scripture is that there is only one Creator and that there's a clear distinction between God and the created world. And that we who are created in the image of God are able to investigate a creation that is remarkably tuned for our discovery. When we look carefully and systematically there, we find amazing evidence for how God brought about the diversity of life on earth.


Tags

jrGroupDiscuss - desc
smarty_function_ntUser_is_admin: user_id parameter required
[]
 
TᵢG
1  seeder  TᵢG    2 months ago

This video / article is produced by BioLogos.   BioLogos explains science (accurately) and then explains Christian religious beliefs in terms that do not contradict well-founded science.

 
 
 
Nerm_L
2  Nerm_L    2 months ago

A plain reading of Charles Darwin is fraught with the same problems as a plain reading of the Bible.  Both present concepts that are interpreted through greater knowledge of hindsight.  Darwin could not explain evolution in terms of today's detail because that knowledge was unavailable.  Darwin was limited to the knowledge of his time and presented the concept of evolution in the context of his time.  That is also the case for concepts presented by the Biblical authors.

Charles Darwin presented the concept of evolution using philosophical analogs and arguments to explain observations.  Darwin's concept of evolution exceeded available detailed knowledge of his time.  Darwin could not explain evolution in scientific terms because the science was not available.  The Biblical authors also presented concepts using philosophical analogs and arguments for the same reasons.   

 
 
 
TᵢG
2.1  seeder  TᵢG  replied to  Nerm_L @2    2 months ago

Darwin presented his empirical findings.   He then presented his interpretation of those findings.   His interpretations were indeed limited by what he knew but they were tightly, directly tied to his findings (evidence).

The Bible, however, is not based on empirical findings other than obvious factors such as the presence of land, water, sun, moon, stars, weather patterns, life, death, sickness, etc.   Based on simple observations of reality, the biblical authors extrapolated to grand stories and sentient entities of enormous power.   It presents details (stories) that are not in any way based on empirical data but rather pure human imagination (and borrowed stories from more ancient imaginations).

The commonality is that Darwin and biblical authors both lacked complete information.   Of course that is also true for everyone on the planet.

The massive difference is that Darwin hypothesized based on his empirical findings whereas the biblical authors leaped into fantasy.   It is like the difference between a history book with historical analysis versus alternate reality historical fiction.    For example, the difference between analysis of WWII and its outcome vs. the alternate reality history expressed in works such as " The Man in the High Castle ".

The other major difference is that the biblical authors proclaim certainty (truth) whereas Darwin offered hypotheses.

 
 
 
Nerm_L
2.1.1  Nerm_L  replied to  TᵢG @2.1    2 months ago
Darwin presented his empirical findings.   He then presented his interpretation of those findings.   His interpretations were indeed limited by what he knew but they were tightly, directly tied to his findings (evidence).
The Bible, however, is not based on empirical findings other than obvious factors such as the presence of land, water, sun, moon, stars, weather patterns, life, death, sickness, etc.   Based on simple observations of reality, the biblical authors extrapolated to grand stories and sentient entities of enormous power.   It presents details (stories) that are not in any way based on empirical data but rather pure human imagination (and borrowed stories from more ancient imaginations).

So did the authors of the books contained in the Bible. 

The massive difference is that Darwin hypothesized based on his empirical findings whereas the biblical authors leaped into fantasy.   It is like the difference between a history book with historical analysis versus alternate reality historical fiction.    For example, the difference between analysis of WWII and its outcome vs. the alternate reality history expressed in works such as "   The Man in the High Castle  ".

I disagree with that assessment.  The Bible addresses anthropological observations concerning human behavior, social organization, and cultural traditions.  The emphasis of what is presented in the Bible is not to describe a determinant universe but, rather, to describe a spiritual reality.  If the Bible is to be read as a scientific text then the pertinent sciences are anthropology and psychology; not physics.

Charles Darwin's emphasis was on describing a determinant and predictable physical reality.  Darwin's hypothesis is based upon the idea that our material selves make us who we are.  

The massive difference between Darwin's hypothesis and the Bible represents a conflict between physical reality and spiritual reality.  

 
 
 
TᵢG
2.1.2  seeder  TᵢG  replied to  Nerm_L @2.1.1    2 months ago
So did the authors of the books contained in the Bible. 

But they extrapolated from ordinary observations into grand supernatural explanations.   It is one thing to observe the motion of bodies and formulate a predictive and testable theory of gravity.   It is very different to observe the sun and the moon and extrapolate that these were created by an omnipotent, omniscient, etc. sentient entity whose purpose was to give a big light for the day and another for the night.   The former is direct evidence, verifiable, predictive and falsifiable.   The latter is simply imagination.

The emphasis of what is presented in the Bible is not to describe a determinant universe but, rather, to describe a spiritual reality. 

A spiritual 'reality' based on zero evidence.   It is pure imagination.

 
 
 
Nerm_L
2.1.3  Nerm_L  replied to  TᵢG @2.1.2    2 months ago
But they extrapolated from ordinary observations into grand supernatural explanations.

How is that any different than extrapolating evolution into grand natural explanations of ethics, morality, free will, human behavior, or social organization?

It is very different to observe the sun and the moon and extrapolate that these were created by an omnipotent, omniscient, etc. sentient entity whose purpose was to give a big light for the day and another for the night.

Observing the sun and moon provides no insight for concepts of good and evil.  What makes humans human involves more than atoms, photons, heat, and star dust.

A spiritual 'reality' based on zero evidence.   It is pure imagination.

Zero physical evidence; that's the key distinction.  What is the physical evidence for free will?  Does the absence of physical evidence justify denying the presence of free will?

 
 
 
Gordy327
2.1.4  Gordy327  replied to  Nerm_L @2.1.3    2 months ago

Evolution doesn't deal with concepts of ethics or morality. Behavior & social organuzation, from an evolutionary standpoint, is about the benefit to the group as a whole, which in turn may benefit the individual too.

 
 
 
Nerm_L
2.1.5  Nerm_L  replied to  Gordy327 @2.1.4    2 months ago
Evolution doesn't deal with concepts of ethics or morality.

That's correct.  Evolution doesn't deal with concepts of good and evil.

Behavior & social organuzation, from an evolutionary standpoint, is about the benefit to the group as a whole, which in turn may benefit the individual too.

But that is an extrapolation of evolution to provide a grand natural explanation for concepts of good and evil.

 
 
 
Gordy327
2.1.6  Gordy327  replied to  Nerm_L @2.1.5    2 months ago

No, that does not explain good or evil. It explains how behavior is used for the benefit and survival of the group. That's it. 

 
 
 
TᵢG
2.1.7  seeder  TᵢG  replied to  Nerm_L @2.1.3    2 months ago
How is that any different than extrapolating evolution into grand natural explanations of ethics, morality, free will, human behavior, or social organization?

Where do you see evolution being extrapolated into ethics, morality, free will, human behavior or social organization??

Observing the sun and moon provides no insight for concepts of good and evil. 

Correct.   Why you make this statement is not clear, but your statement is correct.

What makes humans human involves more than atoms, photons, heat, and star dust.

Again, no doubt about it.   And, again, non sequitur.

Zero physical evidence; that's the key distinction. 

Give me an example of non-physical evidence.

What is the physical evidence for free will?

We can observe behavior that appears to be freely made.   That is physical evidence.   It is not proof that we actually have free will (it might just be a very persuasive illusion), but it is evidence.   

Does the absence of physical evidence justify denying the presence of free will?

Of course not.  Another non sequitur


Nerm, I am about to tune out here.   I just do not have the patience to reply to strawman arguments and non-sequitur replies.   That is, I am not interested in issuing rebuttals for arguments that I have not made and for claims I have not made.

 
 
 
Heartland American
2.1.8  Heartland American  replied to  TᵢG @2.1.2    2 months ago

Speaking from the White House Friday afternoon, President Donald Trump announced houses of worship have been classified as essential services by the federal government.  

"At my direction the Centers for Disease Control and prevention is issuing guidance for communities of faith," Trump said. "Today I am identifying houses of worship, churches, synagogues and mosques as essential places that provide essential services. Some governors have deemed liquor stores and abortion clinics as essential but have left out churches and other houses of worship. It's not right. So I'm correcting this injustice and calling houses of worship essential." 

"I call upon governors to allow our churches and places of worship to open right now. If there's any question, they're going to have to call me but they're not going to be successful in that call. These are places that hold our society together and keep our people united. The people are demanding to go to church and synagogues, go to their mosque. Many millions of Americans embrace worship as an essential part of life. The ministers, pastors, rabbis, imams and other faith leaders will make sure their congregations are safe as they gather and pray. https://townhall.com/tipsheet/katiepavlich/2020/05/22/trump-presser-on-churches-n2569314

 
 
 
TᵢG
2.1.9  seeder  TᵢG  replied to  Heartland American @2.1.8    2 months ago

How does this advertisement for your new seed apply to this seed?

If you are going to inject language like this, at least let us know how this is relevant to this article.

 
 
 
Nerm_L
2.1.10  Nerm_L  replied to  TᵢG @2.1.7    2 months ago
Where do you see evolution being extrapolated into ethics, morality, free will, human behavior or social organization??

Charles Darwin's hypothesis only pertained to physical transformation of one organism into a different organism.  Darwin observed how environment could influence transformations and survival of specific physical traits.  The idea of survival of the fittest concerned physical adaptation to environmental conditions.  Darwin's evolution is about physical form and physical function. 

Attempting to explain behavior and social organization as an extrapolation of Darwin's evolution exceeds the physical limitations of what Darwin hypothesized.  

Correct.   Why you make this statement is not clear, but your statement is correct.

I am pointing out a flaw in the logic that Darwin's concept of evolution can be conflated with or compared to concepts presented in the Bible.  Darwin's concept is concerned with physical manifestation resulting from physical cause.  The Bible is concerned with physical manifestation resulting from spiritual cause.

We can observe behavior that appears to be freely made.   That is physical evidence.   It is not proof that we actually have free will (it might just be a very persuasive illusion), but it is evidence.  

What we actually observe (as physical evidence) is a behavior resulting from an intangible, non-physical cause.  While that may not be proof that we have free will, the evidence does provide strong support, if not absolute proof, that there is an intangible, non-physical causality.  The evidence does provide a proof of spiritual reality.

Of course not.  Another non sequitur

Pointing out contradictions is not a non sequitur.  The contradiction provides the basis for refutation of a thesis.

 
 
 
Heartland American
2.1.11  Heartland American  replied to  TᵢG @2.1.9    2 months ago

The Bible and God are and always have been essential.  

 
 
 
Heartland American
2.1.12  Heartland American  replied to  Nerm_L @2.1.10    2 months ago

But evolution just happened...No intelligence behind it, all that exquisite detailed design, and it’s all random chance?  Lol! jrSmiley_10_smiley_image.gifjrSmiley_29_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
TᵢG
2.1.13  seeder  TᵢG  replied to  Nerm_L @2.1.10    2 months ago
Attempting to explain behavior and social organization as an extrapolation of Darwin's evolution exceeds the physical limitations of what Darwin hypothesized.

Again, where do you see me speaking of behavior or social organization?

Good grief Nerm, you sure know how to ruin a discussion.   Ignoring the balance of your post since I am done responding to strawman arguments and non sequitur responses.

 
 
 
TᵢG
2.1.14  seeder  TᵢG  replied to  Heartland American @2.1.11    2 months ago
The Bible and God are and always have been essential.

Not responsive to the question I asked you:

TiG @2.1.9 ☞ How does this advertisement for your new seed apply to this seed?
 
 
 
TᵢG
2.1.15  seeder  TᵢG  replied to  Heartland American @2.1.12    2 months ago
But evolution just happened...No intelligence behind it, all that exquisite detailed design, and it’s all random chance?

Evolution is not a random process.   Take some time and learn the basics.

 
 
 
Nerm_L
2.1.16  Nerm_L  replied to  TᵢG @2.1.13    2 months ago
Again, where do you see me speaking of behavior or social organization? Good grief Nerm, you sure know how to ruin a discussion.   Ignoring the balance of your post since I am done responding to strawman arguments and non sequitur responses.

I don't see you speaking of behavior or social organization and I have not claimed you have. You are making a strawman argument to avoid the discussion.  And my refutation of the thesis in the seeded article.

The core of what the Bible presents are concepts of ethics, morals, human behavior, social organization, and the concept of good and evil.  The Bible is not a treatise on physical causality nor is it intended to be.

The thesis of the seeded article is whether or not evolution contradicts the Bible.  I'm pointing out that Darwin's hypothesis dealt with physical reality while the Bible dealt with spiritual reality.  That's the contradiction in the argument being presented.

The seeded article and the embedded video present an argument using flawed logic.  

Charles Darwin and evolution does not contradict the Bible because the Bible concerns itself with an entirely different subject that is unrelated to evolution.

Does evolution contradict Johannes Brahms lullaby?  According the logic employed in the seeded article, that's a valid and serious question.  I'm refuting the presented thesis.

 
 
 
TᵢG
2.1.17  seeder  TᵢG  replied to  Nerm_L @2.1.16    2 months ago
I don't see you speaking of behavior or social organization and I have not claimed you have.

Then why are you presenting an argument to me as if I had made such a claim.   That, by definition, is a strawman argument.

You are making a strawman argument to avoid the discussion.

Fascinating.

.. skipping ...

Does evolution contradict Johannes Brahms lullaby?  According the logic employed in the seeded article, that's a valid and serious question.  I'm refuting the presented thesis.

We are expected to take you seriously with this kind of 'pulled from thin air' nonsense??


If you want to discuss social organization or human behavior (or lullabies) then write or seed an article on that topic.  

 
 
 
Gordy327
2.1.18  Gordy327  replied to  Heartland American @2.1.12    2 months ago

If you actually understood evolution, you might see how lame your comment is. Eh, perhaps not.  But I defy you to prove there's an "intelligence" or "design" behind it!

 
 
 
The Magic Eight Ball
2.1.19  The Magic Eight Ball  replied to  Gordy327 @2.1.18    2 months ago
to prove there's an "intelligence" or "design" behind it!

god is a genetic engineer...  

 
 
 
pat wilson
2.1.20  pat wilson  replied to  TᵢG @2.1.2    2 months ago
A spiritual 'reality' based on zero evidence.   It is pure imagination.

I personally experience a spiritual reality in my everyday life, whether or not it's my imagination is immaterial. 

 
 
 
TᵢG
2.1.21  seeder  TᵢG  replied to  pat wilson @2.1.20    2 months ago

What do you experience?

 
 
 
pat wilson
2.1.22  pat wilson  replied to  TᵢG @2.1.21    2 months ago

I and i can only describe it as a certain consciousness.

 
 
 
TᵢG
2.1.23  seeder  TᵢG  replied to  pat wilson @2.1.22    2 months ago

I do not understand what you mean.

I experience what could be called 'certain consciousness' all the time.   For example, I am entirely aware of my consciousness and am certain that my mind is currently focused on expressing this to you.   I doubt, however, that is what you mean.

 
 
 
pat wilson
2.1.24  pat wilson  replied to  TᵢG @2.1.23    2 months ago

Didn't mean to be flippant.

I feel a spiritual connection to the world I live in. I don't have the words to describe it further than that.

 
 
 
TᵢG
2.1.25  seeder  TᵢG  replied to  pat wilson @2.1.24    2 months ago
Didn't mean to be flippant.

I did not interpret your comment that way.

I don't have the words to describe it further than that.

Okay.

 
 
 
Nerm_L
2.1.26  Nerm_L  replied to  TᵢG @2.1.17    2 months ago
Then why are you presenting an argument to me as if I had made such a claim.   That, by definition, is a strawman argument.

I am presenting arguments to support my comment @2.1.1.  I pointed out that the Bible is based upon empirical observations of human behavior, social organization, and cultural traditions.  I introduced the point that the Bible addresses the sciences of anthropology and psychology; not the science of physics.

Why would I attribute something said by myself to you?  And why are you attempting to falsely claim I did so?

The Bible is actually more scientifically correct than Charles Darwin's hypothesis of evolution.  But the Bible is concerned with entirely different fields of science (anthropology, sociology, psychology, etc.) than Charles Darwin's hypothesis of evolution (biology, ecology, etc.).

A plain reading of the Bible is relevant today because human behavior and the motivations for human behavior have not changed.  The Bible explains humanity as humanity is experienced today.  The Bible presents the source of human behavior as an intangible, non-physical, spiritual reality.

 
 
 
sandy-2021492
2.1.27  sandy-2021492  replied to  Nerm_L @2.1.26    2 months ago
The Bible is actually more scientifically correct than Charles Darwin's hypothesis of evolution. The Bible presents the source of human behavior as an intangible, non-physical, spiritual reality.

An oxymoron.  Science doesn't deal with spirituality.  Ascribing behavior to "spiritual reality" is decidedly not good science.

 
 
 
Nerm_L
2.1.28  Nerm_L  replied to  Gordy327 @2.1.6    2 months ago
No, that does not explain good or evil. It explains how behavior is used for the benefit and survival of the group. That's it. 

But according to evolution, survival of the group provides most benefit to the strongest and fittest.  We observe in nature that the group does not protect the young, the sick, the weak, the infirm, or the injured.  The group will abandon those who cannot keep up.

Survival of the group is not a cooperative or charitable activity, according to evolution.

 
 
 
Kathleen
2.1.29  Kathleen  replied to  pat wilson @2.1.22    2 months ago

I have experienced signs that my sister may be leaving me. It’s too personal to be coincidences. I could find no explanation of this whatsoever.

 
 
 
Nerm_L
2.1.30  Nerm_L  replied to  sandy-2021492 @2.1.27    2 months ago
An oxymoron.  Science doesn't deal with spirituality.  Ascribing behavior to "spiritual reality" is decidedly not good science.

Behavioral sciences involve the study of physical manifestations of intangible, non-physical motivations and causes for individual and social behaviors.  In humans that is often referred to as the human spirit.

Science is not limited to physical reality.  The scientific method can be utilized for non-physical reality (or spiritual reality).  

 
 
 
sandy-2021492
2.1.31  sandy-2021492  replied to  Nerm_L @2.1.30    2 months ago
In humans that is often referred to as the human spirit.

Not by science.

 
 
 
sandy-2021492
2.1.32  sandy-2021492  replied to  Nerm_L @2.1.28    2 months ago
the group does not protect the young,

Groups do protect the young.

 
 
 
TᵢG
2.1.33  seeder  TᵢG  replied to  Nerm_L @2.1.26    2 months ago
Why would I attribute something said by myself to you? 

When one REPLY(ies) to an interlocutor with a rebuttal they are implying that their interlocutor made the argument of said rebuttal.   We call this the strawman tactic.

The Bible is actually more scientifically correct than Charles Darwin's hypothesis of evolution.  But the Bible is concerned with entirely different fields of science (anthropology, sociology, psychology, etc.) than Charles Darwin's hypothesis of evolution (biology, ecology, etc.).

You are claiming that the authors of the Bible used the scientific method to discover and formalize their findings into falsifiable theories that have the ability to make predictions.  That would be science Nerm; but clearly there is no evidence of that.   Your reference to anthropology, sociology and psychology are simply historical records.   That is not science;  it is history (and in many cases it is pure fiction).

A plain reading of the Bible is relevant today because human behavior and the motivations for human behavior have not changed.  The Bible explains humanity as humanity is experienced today. 

So does any other historical book which speaks of the human condition.

The Bible presents the source of human behavior as an intangible, non-physical, spiritual reality.

And that is fiction sans any supporting evidence.  It is the opposite of science.

 
 
 
Nerm_L
2.1.34  Nerm_L  replied to  TᵢG @2.1.33    2 months ago
You are claiming that the authors of the Bible used the scientific method to discover and formalize their findings into falsifiable theories that have the ability to make predictions.

No, I did not claim that the authors of the Bible used the scientific method.   Especially since the scientific method had not been developed or utilized at that early date.  

Charles Darwin did not utilize systematic observation, measurement, and experimentation to formulate or test his hypothesis.  Darwin utilized random observation and classification to formulate a hypothesis that explained what was observed.  

Your reference to anthropology, sociology and psychology are simply historical records.   That is not science;  it is history (and in many cases it is pure fiction).

Charles Darwin's observations are historical records, too.  It's possible to replicate Darwin's observations but it's not possible to duplicate Darwin's observations.

 
 
 
TᵢG
2.1.35  seeder  TᵢG  replied to  Nerm_L @2.1.34    2 months ago
No, I did not claim that the authors of the Bible used the scientific method.   Especially since the scientific method had not been developed or utilized at that early date.  

Science, as used today, implies following the scientific method.   Based on past experience, you no doubt have a very generous, atypical definition of the term 'science' which you did not (as usual) disclose so that your readers knew what you were saying.   Is your undisclosed meaning for 'science' something loose and generous like: " system for organizing the knowledge about a particular subject, especially one concerned with aspects of human behavior or society "?

Charles Darwin did not utilize systematic observation, measurement, and experimentation to formulate or test his hypothesis.  Darwin utilized random observation and classification to formulate a hypothesis that explained what was observed.  

jrSmiley_98_smiley_image.gif   You deem the ancient writers of the Bible to be engaging in science yet inexplicably claim that Darwin's hypothesis of speciation by natural selection was not science.  

Today's quota of patience is almost gone.

 
 
 
Nerm_L
2.1.36  Nerm_L  replied to  TᵢG @2.1.35    2 months ago
Science, as used today, implies following the scientific method.

That is incorrect.  Modern science involves the systematic study of form, function, and behavior of the natural world (or natural universe) using observation and/or experimentation.  The distinction between ancient and modern science concerns the methods of systematic study.

Modern theoretical science does not necessarily utilize the scientific method since theoretical science doesn't necessarily rely upon either observation or experimentation.

Based on past experience, you no doubt have a very generous, atypical definition of the term 'science' which you did not (as usual) disclose so that your readers knew what you were saying.   Is your undisclosed meaning for 'science' something loose and generous like: " system for organizing the knowledge about a particular subject, especially one concerned with aspects of human behavior or society "?

Taxonomy is strictly an observational scientific activity that does not formulate hypotheses concerning form, function, or behavior of the natural world.  The science of taxonomy observes and classifies.  The science of taxonomy does not utilize the scientific method.  

The science of taxonomy refutes your contention that science is something other than a system for organizing knowledge about a particular subject.  Science really is more broadly defined than the use of the scientific method.

 
 
 
TᵢG
2.1.37  seeder  TᵢG  replied to  Nerm_L @2.1.36    2 months ago

Yup, exactly as I thought.   You use 'science' with an atypical definition.

Modern theoretical science does not necessarily utilize the scientific method since theoretical science doesn't necessarily rely upon either observation or experimentation.

Of course it does Nerm.   Theoretical science is based on empirical science.   Theoretical science uses what we know and attempts to extrapolate a formally sound explanation for that which we do not know.   Theoretical science cannot produce scientific theories, but its foundation is empirical science and its methods are formal and objective.   Do you think Einstein's theories were not founded on known science?  Do you think the mathematical formalisms of his theories were not grounded by extant formalisms representing scientific knowledge?

Do you think that particle physics is not based on empirical observation and validation?   What do you think the Large Hadron Collider is used for?

Taxonomy is strictly an observational scientific activity that does not formulate hypotheses concerning form, function, or behavior of the natural world.  The science of taxonomy observes and classifies.  The science of taxonomy does not utilize the scientific method.  

Taxonomy is (as you used the term) part of biology.   Do you think taxonomic classifications are based on guesses?   Taxonomies are based upon the findings of science.   Formal evidence that is highly verified and subjected to substantial falsification is the raw material of taxonomic classification.   Your argument here would lead to making the claim that the contents of a scientific article are not based on the scientific method simply because the act of typing the article does not itself use the scientific method.   

Science really is more broadly defined than the use of the scientific method.

As explained above, your attempts to portray science as something that can be conducted without a foundation of the scientific method is sophistry.   If you engage in a practice that uses 'facts' that are not ultimately grounded by the scientific method then you are not engaging in science.   The scientific study of dark matter and energy, for example, is highly theoretical but is grounded on our understanding of cosmology ... it is grounded in evidence, laws and theories per the scientific method.  

 
 
 
sandy-2021492
2.1.38  sandy-2021492  replied to  Nerm_L @2.1.36    2 months ago
Science really is more broadly defined than the use of the scientific method.

Apparently, to some, science includes using one's imagination to attribute supernatural causes to observed natural phenomena, and then counting those flights of fancy as fact with no further supporting evidence.

Good grief.

 
 
 
Nerm_L
2.1.39  Nerm_L  replied to  TᵢG @2.1.37    2 months ago
Taxonomy is (as you used the term) part of biology.   Do you think taxonomic classifications are based on guesses?   Taxonomies are based upon the findings of science.   Formal evidence that is highly verified and subjected to substantial falsification is the raw material of taxonomic classification.   Your argument here would lead to making the claim that the contents of a scientific article are not based on the scientific method simply because the act of typing the article does not itself use the scientific method.   

Taxonomy is a science.  Charles Darwin hypothesized evolution using only taxonomy.  

 
 
 
TᵢG
2.1.40  seeder  TᵢG  replied to  Nerm_L @2.1.39    2 months ago
Taxonomy is a science. 

Yes, part of biology.   As I noted.  

Charles Darwin hypothesized evolution using only taxonomy.  

You do not realize that Darwin formally and carefully gathered empirical evidence which led to his hypothesis of speciation by natural selection??   That follows the scientific method.

 
 
 
Nerm_L
2.1.41  Nerm_L  replied to  sandy-2021492 @2.1.38    2 months ago
Apparently, to some, science includes using one's imagination to attribute supernatural causes to observed natural phenomena, and then counting those flights of fancy as fact with no further supporting evidence.

Albert Einstein relied heavily upon imaginary situations that could not be observed to formulate the theory of General Relativity.

 
 
 
TᵢG
2.1.42  seeder  TᵢG  replied to  Nerm_L @2.1.41    2 months ago
Albert Einstein relied heavily upon imaginary situations that could not be observed to formulate the theory of General Relativity.

Do you not understand that speculation is part of the scientific process?   Thinking outside of the box is very much part of science.  The key is that the scientific method requires that speculation eventually be formalized based on solid evidence and known science to be considered a bonafide theory of empirical science.   Science does not produce speculation as an end result.  

The theory of Relativity was not accepted as such until it passed empirical validation.    see:  Eddington experiment.


Nerm, I am confident that you know more about science than your posts suggest.   So why do you routinely play this faulty Devil's advocate game?   Playing the DA is fine when there is no clear answer but it is downright nutty to do so when you are on the wrong side of the facts.

 
 
 
sandy-2021492
2.1.43  sandy-2021492  replied to  Nerm_L @2.1.41    2 months ago

And his theory was not accepted until it was supported by empirical evidence.

Not really equivalent to assigning supernatural causes to natural events, and leaving it at that.

 
 
 
Gordy327
2.1.44  Gordy327  replied to  The Magic Eight Ball @2.1.19    2 months ago

Thats nice. Prove it! Of course, that would first require proving there's a god to begin with. And if that were true, then God has a lot of screw-ups on his record.

 
 
 
charger 383
3  charger 383    2 months ago

    " Notice too that there was day and night for three days before the sun was even created on day       four."

I never caught that before

 
 
 
bccrane
3.1  bccrane  replied to  charger 383 @3    2 months ago

No, it says "Separating light from dark".  You had to have energy (light) and matter (dark) before you could have a sun and moon.

 
 
 
TᵢG
3.1.1  seeder  TᵢG  replied to  bccrane @3.1    2 months ago
You had to have energy (light) and matter (dark) before you could have a sun and moon.

Matter is not the dark.   But it would be valid (scientifically) to presume this means that here God created the photon.  

 
 
 
Dismayed Patriot
3.1.2  Dismayed Patriot  replied to  bccrane @3.1    2 months ago
You had to have energy (light) and matter (dark) before you could have a sun and moon.

Energy and matter are the same, much in the way dark energy and dark matter are the same. One could say (light) energy and (light) matter exist only because dark energy and dark matter exist and there is some barrier between the two, as if our universe was ripped through a pinhole out of dark energy in what we call the big bang which exploded light energy/matter into it's own bubble within an unfathomable expanse of dark energy/matter.

https://science.nasa.gov/astrophysics/focus-areas/what-is-dark-energy

If (light) energy/matter have a (light) quantum realm, then it would also make sense that dark energy does as well, like a mirror dark quantum field.

Our universe is about 14.5 billion years old. The dark energy/matter may be infinitely older. When some pose the question as to whether life could have occurred out there in the universe in the last 14.5 billion years I think the answer is most certainly yes, but I find it an even more intriguing thought to think about what might have evolved in the dark matter universe with it's infinitely longer existence.

" Notice too that there was day and night for three days before the sun was even created on day four"

So to accept this scripture in any way rationally, one would have to believe that the word they use for "day" is being used very loosely. How could God have created "day and night" on the fourth day? Would that not already indicate "days" existed before day four, specifically day one, two and three? This was obviously the writings of a human observing "night" and "day" and believing they were the center of the universe, which is why night and day to them didn't exist before they found themselves on a spinning planet revolving around a star. It also seems to follow the Egyptian creation myths in many ways, which would make sense considering Moses was tutored as an Egyptian Prince and must have been familiar with their creation stories long before he penned Genesis.

" The  Book of the Dead , dating to the  Second Intermediate Period , describes how the world was created by Atum, the god of  Heliopolis , the centre of the sun-god cult in Lower Egypt. In the beginning, the world appeared as an infinite expanse of dark and directionless waters, named  Nun . Nun was personified as four pairs of male and female deities. Each couple represented one of four principles that characterized Nun: hiddenness or invisibility, infinite water, straying or lack of direction, and darkness or lack of light. Atum created himself out of Nun by an effort of will or by uttering his own name. 

According to the  Pyramid Texts , written on the walls of pyramids, the creator god emerged from the chaotic darkness of Nun as a mythical  Bennu bird  (similar to a heron or phoenix). He flew to Heliopolis, an ancient city near Cairo, where, at dawn, he alighted on the Benben, an obelisk representing a ray of the sun."

https://www.historymuseum.ca/cmc/exhibitions/civil/egypt/egcr09e.html

 
 
 
Gordy327
4  Gordy327    2 months ago

One must always objectively follow the empirical evidence to where it leads. Not to where one wants it to go. Perhaps that is the biggest difference between science and religion.

 
 
 
Split Personality
4.1  Split Personality  replied to  Gordy327 @4    2 months ago
Not to where one wants it to go.

256

 
 
 
Kathleen
5  Kathleen    2 months ago

I think it depends on how you interpret it.  Some people have tied it in with evolution.  Example, evolution took millions of years, a day in the creation of the earth could be millions of years to the reader.  

 
 
 
TᵢG
5.1  seeder  TᵢG  replied to  Kathleen @5    2 months ago

It is always about interpretation.   No question.   The quality of the interpretation, however, is a factor.  I could interpret the Moon as a great light placed in the sky by a powerful sentient entity so that we can better see at night.   That is an interpretation of empirical observation but it is of very low quality.   It is substantial extrapolation on extremely weak evidence (relative to the interpretation that is).

 
 
 
Kathleen
5.1.1  Kathleen  replied to  TᵢG @5.1    2 months ago

You mean intelligence? 

 
 
 
Dismayed Patriot
5.1.2  Dismayed Patriot  replied to  Kathleen @5.1.1    2 months ago
You mean intelligence?

I believe he meant "quality of the interpretation" meaning whether or not the interpretation is based on real, calculable factors or not. You can be intelligent but lack the tools to observe the moon properly and thus base your interpretation of a moon myth on your own low quality observations, perhaps agreeing with something that would seem ridiculous to us now that high power telescopes have been invented. Same with evolution, while in the past an intelligent person may have agreed with the interpretation of the time that all life was just snapped into existence by a creator and thus nothing was related and there was no room for evolution. Now with the ability to decode DNA and a far more extensive fossil record we can definitively prove evolution has not only occurred but is happening now.

So it's more "ignorance" than "stupidity" (opposite of intelligent) that informs humans about scientific facts, and thank goodness it is because ignorance is curable, stupidity is not. Stupidity or a lack of intelligence is what leads some to continue to refuse belief in things that have already been demonstrably proven true. Most religious persons have taken the opportunity to get informed about evolution and realize that it doesn't necessarily need to conflict with their faith, they can believe in the facts of evolution while also believing in a prime mover. Only those who refuse to accept the facts in front of their faces and continue to reject the calculated age of the earth and the obvious science proving evolution remain stubbornly stupid.

 
 
 
Kathleen
5.1.4  Kathleen  replied to  Dismayed Patriot @5.1.2    2 months ago

Well, I don’t think I would walk into a place of worship and tell them they are ignorant even though some may except evolution along with their faith.  You may call it ignorant or even stupidity, I will just allow them the freedom to believe what they wish without any kind of persecution to go along with it. I would never tell a deeply religious person that they are stupid. 

 
 
 
Dismayed Patriot
5.1.5  Dismayed Patriot  replied to  Kathleen @5.1.4    2 months ago
You may call it ignorant or even stupidity, I will just allow them the freedom to believe what they wish without any kind of persecution to go along with it. I would never tell a deeply religious person that they are stupid. 

If someone believes something regardless of all the facts to the contrary, then they are being stupid regardless of their reason for doing so.

Stupid: adjective - lacking intelligence or reason

Flat earthers are stupid. We have a plethora of evidence and many ways to prove the earth is not flat that anyone can perform. To continue to believe something even when there is a mountain of evidence to the contrary is stupid. Those who continue to believe the earth is only 6,000 years old are stupid. We have a mountain of evidence to the contrary, those who disregard the evidence in favor of an unfounded belief are lacking in intelligence and reason. Those who continue to reject the mountain of evidence proving evolution are stupid, they lack intelligence and reason.

I am not calling people who believe in God stupid, we don't have any evidence to disprove God let alone a mountain of it. You can believe in God and still be intelligent and have the ability to reason.

 
 
 
Kathleen
5.1.6  Kathleen  replied to  Dismayed Patriot @5.1.5    2 months ago

“ You can still believe in God and still be intelligent and have the ability to reason.”

Yep.

 
 
 
sandy-2021492
5.1.7  sandy-2021492  replied to  Kathleen @5.1.4    2 months ago
Well, I don’t think I would walk into a place of worship and tell them they are ignorant

I don't believe DP suggested as much.

However, outside of their churches, if they encounter facts instead of myths, there is no reason to pander to them and nod along and tell them that their myths are just as valid as facts.

 
 
 
Kathleen
5.1.8  Kathleen  replied to  TᵢG @5.1    2 months ago

One other thought I had was by interpreting something in different ways, when does it really harm someone. In school I was taught evolution, I can remember the famous ape to man poster in the classroom. Sunday’s I went to church and Sunday school. When I was in college I became an atheist and throughout my younger years. Now   ( middle age) : ) I am open to more things relating to a spiritual sense instead of the atheist and organized religions.  My point is, some people go through changes in their beliefs so would that be considered low quality thinking?  Just curious.

 
 
 
sandy-2021492
5.1.9  sandy-2021492  replied to  Kathleen @5.1.8    2 months ago
when does it really harm someone.

That depends on the beliefs.  When those beliefs promote slavery, racism, or misogyny, as many religions do, well, that causes harm.  When wars are fought to impose religious beliefs, that causes harm.  When science is treated as heresy and causes those with knowledge of it to be persecuted, that causes harm.  Consider the heresy trial of Galileo, or the witch hunts of Europe.

 
 
 
Kathleen
5.1.10  Kathleen  replied to  sandy-2021492 @5.1.9    2 months ago

True, but I was talking about on a more inner personal aspect. More like keeping it to yourself and not pushing it on others. Would that be harmful in anyway.

As far as the things you mentioned, that does harm others when you use your beliefs in that way.

 
 
 
sandy-2021492
5.1.11  sandy-2021492  replied to  Kathleen @5.1.10    2 months ago

That depends on your definition of "pushing it on others".  Is teaching science in school "pushing" it?  Is teaching the child of a flat-earther the truth that the Earth is not flat "pushing it"?

Through history, and even now, there is an unfortunate tendency to govern based on religious principles, or to attempt to insert one's religion into government.  We saw it with the execution of witches, the arrest of Galileo, the religious wars of Europe, and the forcing of American Indian children into schools where they were punished for following their own traditions.  That last one was fairly recent, BTW.  We see it today in religious wars in the Middle East and dominionism in the US.  It would be nice if we could just live and let live, but many are called by their religions to "spread the word", and unfortunately do so by force, legislation, or trickery.

 
 
 
Kathleen
5.1.12  Kathleen  replied to  sandy-2021492 @5.1.11    2 months ago

They should teach science in public schools. Private schools have religion and parents can choose to send their children there if they wish. Same thing with private colleges. When they become adults, they can choose what path they decide to take for their personal beliefs. 

I think church and state should be separate. 

I have become more "spiritual" as I have become older, and I do not force that on anyone. Most people I know keep it to themselves. So in life for me I have not had bad experiences. The only time I hear about it is on these types of forums. 

There has been many people that have died in the name of religion, there have also been people that have done good charitable work and have helped others in good ways as well. So I guess it all depends on the person and how you use it.

 
 
 
sandy-2021492
5.1.13  sandy-2021492  replied to  Kathleen @5.1.12    2 months ago
I think church and state should be separate. 

I agree.  I wish everyone did.

 
 
 
TᵢG
5.1.14  seeder  TᵢG  replied to  Kathleen @5.1.8    2 months ago
My point is, some people go through changes in their beliefs so would that be considered low quality thinking?  Just curious.

The lowest quality of thinking is blind acceptance:  accepting as true that which another human being merely claims as truth.   The highest quality of thinking is based on facts (as close as one can get to that), objective reasoning and is formal (disciplined and structured with proven methods such as mathematics, first-order logic, etc.).

There are theologians who engage in high quality thinking.   The prime contemporary and well-known example of high quality theological thinking I have is Dr.  William Lane Craig.   If he were still alive, the prime counterpart to this would be Christopher Hitchens.   Today, Dr. Sam Harris might be a good example (albeit not as good as Hitchens).   Both well-researched, disciplined, logical critical thinkers.   They draw entirely different conclusions but the quality of the thinking is high.

In contrast, take individuals such as Kenneth Copeland (the richest televangelist on the planet).   This slime-bag spends his time weaving stories to persuade his followers to send him money (in God's name).   He claims to control the weather and has direct bi-directional conversations with God and thus can intercede on behalf of his many followers.

His followers represent the lowest quality of thinking.  Even when a con-man claims to control the weather these people continue to send him money.   They accept as truth whatever this disgusting societal leach tells them is truth.

Now take Ken Ham, the premier Young Earth Creationist of our time.    This guy actively seeks to discredit every aspect of science that contradicts his literal reading of the Bible.   He runs a successful organization whose purpose is to promote the belief that the Earth is 6,000 years old and that the Bible is literally true in every sense.   To do this he puts out videos, books, etc. (for a price) that twist science and makes absurd claims such as:

  • all scientific dating methods are bogus
  • dinosaurs coexisted with human beings
  • evolution is bullshit

The followers of Ken Ham are another example of low-quality thinking.   They accept his utter nonsense and, in result, millions of kids are being brought up in households that abide by Ham's teachings.   He is dumbing-down millions of kids through this indoctrination and helping to form minds that do not think critically, but rather accept truth from authority.

Final note:  low-quality thinking does not mean the individual is necessarily stupid.  Ignorant (willfully), lazy, gullible, stubborn, indoctrinated, hopeful, frightened, desperate, or etc. might be an appropriate adjective for this blind acceptance, but not necessarily stupidity.

 
 
 
Kathleen
5.1.15  Kathleen  replied to  TᵢG @5.1.14    2 months ago

Well, I would have to say that I never had any respect for those types of people. To them it is more of a business then a genuine inner feeling of a belief. I understand what you mean by their way of thinking and deception. This is all about money to them, I wonder whether they really believe what they are passing off or not. The sad part is that they pray upon people that have had hard lives and are having emotional and other problems. They will give all sorts of money and these scam artists get rich. Okay, the people following them are not thinking clearly. I agree with that. I just want to make sure that not all people that have beliefs are in that same category. 

Your final note. Okay.

 

 
 
 
TᵢG
5.1.16  seeder  TᵢG  replied to  Kathleen @5.1.15    2 months ago
I just want to make sure that not all people that have beliefs are in that same category. 

Of course not.   There exist brilliant people (e.g. we have recently discussed Dr. Francis Collins) who are devout in their religious beliefs.   Part of my fascination with this topic is how such minds can operate at a high level of cognition and discipline in their careers yet succumb to blind acceptance in their religious beliefs.

 
 
Loading...
Loading...

Who is online


TOM PA


33 visitors