Replies

Yours is the divided response that many are offering, in a refusal to make a commitment to their position that is consistent. I understand you to be saying the Bible has some significance to you when it speaks of moral issues, but no significance when it speaks of historical issues as relating to the origin of the universe or living creatures, including mankind.

However, God addresses both to some degree in Scripture. Even though the Bible is written primarily to show men (inclusive) the way to heaven, God does not depart from His ability to tell the truth when He caused inspired writers to record historical events.

Jesus also adressed Biblical events and personages as historical fact/truth, such an Noah and the flood that destroyed all people with the exception of eight individuals.

If scientists can genetically/biologically prove that all of mankind did not descend from eight individuals within recent history (10,000 years or so), then they can disprove the Bible's statements about the flood.

Have they done so?

Jesus claimed to be the truth, and that the word of God was absolutely true, not just in "religious" matters.

Coyoteman said he wasn't talking about religion, but this thread began with the assertion (with reasons) that Christians should accept evolution (macroevolution).

I suggest to do so is to reject the teachings of the Bible.

[Yours is the divided response that many are offering, in a refusal to make a commitment to their position that is consistent. I understand you to be saying the Bible has some significance to you when it speaks of moral issues, but no significance when it speaks of historical issues as relating to the origin of the universe or living creatures, including mankind.]

Your perception is very close, but I want to be clear about my intention. I was offering an interpretation of "the divided response that many are offering" but that stance isn't mine. I've made my commitment to a consistent position which is based upon scientific methodology as a way to answer questions to my satisfaction, though I see a great many people who alternatively use both religious faith as well as science to understand their place in the world. They are in the majority among people I know and among those I talk to about philosophical matters and I notice a tendency among many or even most of them to be reluctant to admit that they use two very different methods of thinking at different times. I do completely understand though, the reasoning which leads those to accept literal creationism, and you state it very concisely in your last post:

[...the Bible is written primarily to show men (inclusive) the way to heaven, God does not depart from His ability to tell the truth when He caused inspired writers to record historical events. Jesus also adressed Biblical events and personages as historical fact/truth, such an Noah and the flood that destroyed all people with the exception of eight individuals. ... Jesus claimed to be the truth, and that the word of God was absolutely true, not just in "religious" matters.]

I'm mindful of the chastisement that the apostle, Thomas receives from Jesus after Thomas refuses to believe, without direct proof, the resurrection of Jesus even after he was told by Jesus ahead of time to expect it.

{{24 But Thomas, one of the twelve, called Didymus, was not with them when Jesus came.

25 The other disciples therefore said unto him, We have seen the LORD. But he said unto them, Except I shall see in his hands the print of the nails, and put my finger into the print of the nails, and thrust my hand into his side, I will not believe.

26 And after eight days again his disciples were within, and Thomas with them: then came Jesus, the doors being shut, and stood in the midst, and said, Peace be unto you.

27 Then saith he to Thomas, Reach hither thy finger, and behold my hands; and reach hither thy hand, and thrust it into my side: and be not faithless, but believing.

28 And Thomas answered and said unto him, My LORD and my God.

29 Jesus saith unto him, Thomas, because thou hast seen me, thou hast believed: blessed are they that have not seen, and yet have believed.}}

Jesus is telling him that it's virtuous to have faith in the word of God and that skepticism of God's word is a hindrance to truth and most Christians understand and accept this.

I'm think I'm going against the conventional wisdom on this (and I know I'm going against the main point of the article) when I say that this philosophy of faith is totally incompatible with the philosophy of science, a central part of which is the directive to NOT accept the word of any authority, that the word of God is meaningless by definition, and that the ONLY way to truth is through a process of rigorous methodological skepticism. In my opinion, it's why there exists such hostility between science and religion and also the reason why articles like this are written to try and paper over the differences, in support of various motivations, not all of them involving the pursuit of truth.

I suspect that you are as satisfied with your choice as I am with mine, though I admit it amuses me to see so many people like the author of this article try to do a balancing act between the two philosophies, wanting to have the best of both worlds. I'll probably make some enemies by saying so, but I don't think they're doing anything useful.

If scientists can genetically/biologically prove that all of mankind did not descend from eight individuals within recent history (10,000 years or so), then they can disprove the Bible's statements about the flood.

Have they done so?

Yes. (point 15, esp.)

If scientists can genetically/biologically prove that all of mankind did not descend from eight individuals within recent history (10,000 years or so), then they can disprove the Bible's statements about the flood.

I just noticed this one. There are far too many alleles in the human genome for this to be possible. ie the human race is far too genetically diverse to have endured such a tight bottleneck so recently. (unless of course God has been fiddling with the human genome to increase diversity and make it look entirely consistently as if the most recent human genetic bottleneck is much more distant and involved a lot more individuals)