Creation vs. Evolution

[deco_martini]

If I missed the links you provided as evidence, PM them to me. I must have overlooked them. This is a very long thread to go link diving in.

The oldest known Hebrew manuscripts of the Torah before 1950 were from after the time of Christ. The oldest known manuscripts now are the Dead Sea Scrolls.

Anyhoo, if you want a crash course in modern biblical scholarship and its findings without reading several dozen books and 100 wikipedia pages, you can try this link:
The Bible . . . and YOU!

Its hard to discuss biblical scholarship when I speak yawhist/elohist and other people speak Moses.

 

[Thalassamania]

Historical analysis was invented by Herodotos and Thucydides in the 5th Century B.C.E. That is a lot longer than the last thousand years. More like 2,400 years.

No it wasn't. If you think that it was, you have no idea of what I am talking about. I am not talking about writing about what happened at an earlier date, I talking about a set of formal rules that are used by modern day academic historians to winnow the wheat from the chaff.

 

[nereas]

I guess Occam's razor would indicate to me that the simplest answer, one that bypasses all theology, satisfies all my needs. But I do see Theology as a loss, it is an attempt to reduce the wonder of the universe to a scale that some as-yet half evolved apes can grock ... that's lèse majesté (or hubris if you prefer)...

William of Ockham (Surrey, England 14th Century A.D.) came up with the KISS principle for philosophy, yes. A good principle, indeed. I use it every time I plan and execute a technical dive.

He also was a devout Franciscan friar, although one who had serious misgivings about the current Roman Pope of his day. His radical ideas, according to my philosophy survey book, included (1) a Pope should be subject to impeachment, and (2) Kings and royalty should be subject to impeachment as well.

I would categorize him as a skeptical pragmatist. He lived during a time that philosophers tried to synthesize Greek thought with Medieval church dogma.

He is not quite an existentialist, as you seem to be, Thal. But he did do a lot of thinking for himself, which made him unique for his day.

I myself have no problems integrating theology with science. It is really not hard to do, given that we truly know so little about either. All of our science is mere theory, justified by various levels of model demonstrations. And all of our religion is dogma based on the writings of ancient sages (nabi in Hebrew; prophetoi in Greek).

And KISS is a universal law, in my view. It is one of the first things anyone is taught in military or naval science.

I have found in reading history that Herodotus is the first ancient writer who attempts to be unbiased and fair in his reporting. That's why I date the origin of science to him. His was the science of journalism and early sociology. He lived shortly after the second Greek-Persian war, the one of Salamis & Platea fame.

Thusydides came along right after him and chronicled the Athenian-Pelopponesian War, and refined the process by leaving out all allusions of mythology, gods, and goddesses. For that, some scholars give him credit as the first true scientific journalist.

Either way, these two were the first. The date was the 5th Century B.C.E.

The previous writers were Homer of Illiad fame and Moses of Old Testament / Torah fame. And both of their writings involved a lot of gods.

 

[Thalassamania]

...

Do you actually read what anyone else writes? It does not appear that you do.

 

[nereas]

Do you actually read what anyone else writes? It does not appear that you do.

598 pages and 5974 posts rather precludes that, here.

 

[WannaGoDiving]

Does there necessarily have to be a conflict between the two?

If a potter tosses a glob of clay on a wheel in order to make a pot, does the clay hit the wheel as a pot or does the potter shape the clay progressively toward a pot?

To say that one must either believe in "creationism" or "evolution" is to argue that either the potter throws the clay onto the wheel and it is instantly a pot or the clay drops onto the wheel and somehow shapes itself into a pot. Netiher make total sense.

But, that is just my humble opinion.

 

[deco_martini]

To say that one must either believe in "creationism" or "evolution" is to argue that either the potter throws the clay onto the wheel and it is instantly a pot or the clay drops onto the wheel and somehow shapes itself into a pot. Netiher make total sense.

You have to remember, evolution describes how species comes about. Evolution isn't a "creator" theory.

Evolution makes perfect sense: "organisms change over time". We have a nice fossil record showing those changes. Just yesterday I saw a story where a legged fish fossil was found. Not only do we have enough to track the branching of species but like all good science it is a predictor. Things continue to evolve.

Acoording to Creation, everything was created by God including man at the time that life began on earth. Not only is this incorrect factually, but its based on people misunderstanding Genesis. Genesis tells two creation myths back to back if you read it closely. They can't even agree on the order things were created. Genesis can not be used to develop predictions about the natural world around you.

Now, what was that first transition where life began at the microscopic level? You can feel free to believe that a creator was behind it. There is no scientific consensus on the topic currently. However, the origin of life is a different debate than evolution v. creation.

The current hybrid version of these is that the creator gave life its start and evolution carried out is usually referred to as "Intelligent Design". Its usually disguised as science however its not observable (we don't see a creator nor see him create things), repeatable, or of use for predicting.

And just to nitpick, if one "believes" in evolution than he is probably missing the point. Its like saying you believe in sunsets.

 

[nereas]

Does there necessarily have to be a conflict between the two?

If a potter tosses a glob of clay on a wheel in order to make a pot, does the clay hit the wheel as a pot or does the potter shape the clay progressively toward a pot?

To say that one must either believe in "creationism" or "evolution" is to argue that either the potter throws the clay onto the wheel and it is instantly a pot or the clay drops onto the wheel and somehow shapes itself into a pot. Netiher make total sense.

But, that is just my humble opinion.

You are right, there does not need to be a conflict between the two (religion and science).

People from either extreme, either the science extreme or the religion extreme, like to create a conflict between them. Who knows why? Maybe they just love to argue? Or maybe they have deep disturbing doubts about one or the other?

Science fans, and some scientists, forget that all science is merely inference. They attempt instead to elevate their science to dogma.

Religion fans sometimes forget that faith is the major principle of being devout. Therefore you cannot possibly prove anything to anyone else about religion.

There are 6+ billion people on this planet of ours, and 150+ nations. Therefore tolerance is the major necessity for peace on Earth. Certainly not crusade nor gihad.

 

[jonnythan]

I disappear for two years and this thread is still going on?

Holy crap!

 

[JeffG]

I disappear for two years and this thread is still going on?

Holy crap!

Some things never change. Just the players (Sometimes, not even them.)