Phony Theory, False Conflict

Washington Post ^ | Nov 17 | Charles Krauthammer

[raj bhatia]

A brilliant piece by Krauthammer, as usual. The punch line: "How ridiculous to make evolution the enemy of God. What could be more elegant, more simple, more brilliant, more economical, more creative, indeed more divine than a planet with millions of life forms, distinct and yet interactive, all ultimately derived from accumulated variations in a single double-stranded molecule, pliable and fecund enough to give us mollusks and mice, Newton and Einstein? Even if it did give us the Kansas State Board of Education, too."

[Theo]

We could go around and around with this verse. Yes, on the day that Adam ate the fruit and sinned against God, God doomed Adam to die. I would argue that if he hadn't sinned, he would not have died.

But let me ask just a few questions, to help get us out of this loop:

1) Do you believe Adam and Eve would have died if they hadn't sinned?

2) How do you interpret Romans 5:15-21, which clearly states that "the many died by the trespass of the one man" and that "by the trespass of the one man, death reigned through that one man" and "sin reigned in death"?

3) And how do you interpret Romans 8:18-22, which speaks of a bondage to decay brought about by the Fall?

4) In light of Romans 6:23, would you say that death is *not* the consequence of sin? Yes, "spiritual" death, but also "physical" death. Death.

[Theo]

You're saying the translators of the ESV are intentionally mistranslating here? They're "editing God's word"?

[MeanWestTexan]

Great examples of how "day" is not necessarily literal in Genesis.

[Theo]

Note that Black felt the need to add words to the verse. He wrote that "Adam will surely die the moment he eats from the tree...." The Bible doesn't include the words "the moment."

[doc30]

Laws and Theories are inextractably tied together. Your googled defintion, "generalization that describes recurring facts or events in nature,": and the one from the McGraw-Hill Dictionary of Scientific and Technical Terms, "A regularity that applies to all members of a broad class of phenomena," does lead to a connection with theory. But this is really hair splitting and I'm not underplaying the distictions. Violations of scientific Laws do happen, but my point to Mazeman was that violations of a Law are the same as violations of a theory. The question is do these violations invalidate the theory or law in question? Typically, the violations occur outside the scope of the theory or law. When building a theory to explain the violations, it must also explain the conditions where the older theory still works well. You have probably heard many times the classic example where Relativity is an extension of Newtonian laws of Motion. When Newton's laws are invalidated under the velocities and/or gravities, Relativity becomes the dominant theory. However, outside of those extreme circumstances, Newton's Laws work well and relativity can be simplified into Newton's Laws. In other words, Newton's laws are predicted from relativity and can be considered a subset of relativity.

The creationist types demand that either unproven theory not be taught or theories with bholes and gaps not be taught. But if they understood what they are thinking, they would realize that their arguements leads to a scientific dead end.

Aside from arguing the nuances of Law vs. Theory, the important point is that most people, especially the creationist types, just can't or won't get their heads around the basic concept of theory. And I can tell by many of your previous posts, that it drives you just as crazy as other people here on FR who know the important context of what is a scientific theory.

[Virginia-American]

[Devout Christians cannot be Darwinists, and vice versa.]

Simon Conway Morris is both. See for example about 1/4 the way down

excerpt

In an essay entitled, “Agreeing Only to Disagree on God’s Place in Science,” George Johnson reports from a Templeton Foundation seminar on science and religion in Cambridge. There, Dawkins, a featured speaker, had a heated exchange with Simon Conway Morris, a Christian paleontologist.

Seems the two scientists started off pleasantly enough. They agreed, Johnson writes, that the “richness of the biosphere, humanity included, could be explained through natural selection.” They also agreed that “evolution is not a crapshoot”—that if the earth’s history could be redone the result might differ slightly, but “certain physical constraints would favor the eventual appearance of warm-blooded creatures something like us, with eyes, ears, noses and brains.”

But that’s where they “forked in orthogonal directions.” For Conway Morris, nature’s ability to produce moral creatures, humans, indicates that God must have orchestrated evolution. Dawkins doesn’t buy it, and he asked Conway Morris why, if they could agree on everything else, he has to add God to the picture. From a scientific perspective, Dawkins said, Conway Morris’s God was “gratuitous.”

Ouch. Dawkins’ remark apparently left Conway Morris “momentarily flummoxed,” as he “muttered to himself.” Dawkins, Johnson writes, “had scored a crucial point.”

End excerpt

Conway Morris is one of the world's experts on the Burgess Shale.

Another essay on the same topic

[Virginia-American]

1. The anti-science crowd are actually Democrats pretending to be Republicans to make us look stupid, thereby turning thinking people away from the Republican Party. (It's working.)

A couple of weeks ago I bypothesized that the anti-evos were really agents of the D*m*cr*t^* party, or George Soros, or suchlike, salting FR with juicy quotes to be mined later.

^*Dhimmicrat may be a better euphemism.

[Antonello]

I generally only hash out scriptural interpretations as a philosophical exercise, so I'm not sure how useful it would be to share that here. I have recently done this on a previous thread for Paul's Epistle to the Romans, which can be found here, but I'll take a pass on the others you've asked for.

For what it's worth, I tend to reference the King James Version when making scriptural analysis, since that is the version I used during my formal studies. I find it helpful to share that info so whomever I am talking to doesn't have to guess. Hopefully I was correct in attributing your quote to the English Standard Version.

[dread78645]

"Evening and morning" placemark

[Antonello]

You're saying the translators of the ESV are intentionally mistranslating here? They're "editing God's word"?

The presence of the footnote indicates a revised interpretation by someone involved with that version. While I cannot speak with authority as to their motive, it is self evident that someone did indeed 'edit God's Word', and this was acceptable enough to the recipients of this particular version that the footnote still stands. I do acknowledge that my inference that it was done to alleviate confusion regarding the literalness of a biblical 'day' is merely my own opinion.

[Antonello]

Note that Black felt the need to add words to the verse. He wrote that "Adam will surely die the moment he eats from the tree...." The Bible doesn't include the words "the moment."

Note that BackInBlack clarified in his post #149 that he got that word usage from the New American Version. Considering that Theo hadn't bothered to cite the version he was working with, one can hardly fault BackInBlack for relying on the version of his choice.

[spinestein]

"However, I don't see reason to interpret the account in Genesis figuratively."

Most Christians do exactly this. That doesn't mean I'm suggesting you change your faith based on what other Christians think, but you should realize that it is not only possible, but that it is also usual.

[BackInBlack]

I am saying what others have said: fish is not a single species; therefore, your point didn't make much sense.

[spinestein]

An interpretation which I prefer is that when Adam (which literally translated means "people" or "men") ate from the tree, he was representing humanity becoming homo sapiens (man, the wise) from his less intelligent ancestors by eating the fruit of knowledge.

Before man evolved the capacity for the sophisticated reasoning that we possess today, we were not able to distinguish right from wrong or good deeds from bad. After acquiring this we also acquire the capacity to sin, the consequences of such sin and also the knowledge of our own mortality. I think the metaphor here is obvious and appropriate.

[Secret Agent Man]

In fact, that IS what 'punctuated equilibrium' says occurs. Many significant changes occuring in very short periods of time (and therefore the reason no transitional forms are found).

[BackInBlack]

"We could go around and around with this verse. Yes, on the day that Adam ate the fruit and sinned against God, God doomed Adam to die."

The only reason we're going around and around is that you have no faith in God's word. You lionize your own instincts instead of trusting what God plainly says. That is hubris, not Christianity. The verse does not say God will doom him to death on that day; it says Adam will die on that day. You are simply wrong, and on some level you know that, because anyone who can read knows what that verse says.

"Do you believe Adam and Eve would have died if they hadn't sinned?"

They would have died physically, of course, but would not have suffered the spiritual death of separation from God.

"How do you interpret Romans 5:15-21, which clearly states that 'the many died by the trespass of the one man' and that 'by the trespass of the one man, death reigned through that one man' and 'sin reigned in death'?"

It means because of Adam's separation from God, his descendants, too, are separated from God (though they have the ability to get closer and closer through Christ). When it says "sin reigned in death," it again could not be talking about literal death, because simply dying is not a sin. Sins are things we do when we're alive. So for sin to reign in "death," we must be literally living, but spiritually separated from God.

"And how do you interpret Romans 8:18-22, which speaks of a bondage to decay brought about by the Fall?"

Same as above.

[BackInBlack]

Did you not see my translations? The New American version specifically DID have the word moment. Why do you hate God's Word?

[Secret Agent Man]

And as I said in my last post, it seems that depending what evolutionist you talk to, or depending how the argument is going, they either push the punctuated equilibrium position or the 'gradual changes over long periods of time' position.

Evolutionists are not all on the same page when discussing evolutionary theory.

[BackInBlack]

I was quoting someone else there. I agree with you.

[Antonello]

Based on the impressions you have formed about me over the course of our discussions, would you be shocked to hear that I am in the Punctuated Equilibrium camp?