Copernicus and Darwin: Why is only one not biblical?

[micatala]

I've brought up this question on a number of threads, and thought it might be worth its own discussion.

The question is:

Why should we (or do you, as the case may be) accept the literal '6-day creation' interpretation of Genesis as the only legitimate interpretation, and not accept the literal interpretation made by many in the 16th and 17th centuries who said that the Copernican system was counter to Holy Scripture?

Stated in another way:

If Martin Luther was wrong about the solar system, why not those who claim evolution is not compatible with the Bible?

I have often asked creationists why it is not possible that the literal interpretation of Genesis 1 and 2 is incorrect, when we know that the literal interprations of Martin Luther, John Calvin, not to mention the Catholic heirarchy, concerning the immobility of the earth were wrong.

My question is really for those who insist there is no other possible interpretation of Genesis other than the YEC version.

My assumption is not that all literal interpretations are wrong, only that this is a definite possibility, and has demonstrably occurred.

I will note that I am a Christian and my goal is certainly not to deprecate or denigrate either Scripture, Christianity, or fellow Christians.

Some of the relevant passages of scripture (I did not do an exhaustive search) are given below in a quote from the God a Part of Evolution? thread.

From Luther:
"This fool [Copernicus] wishes to reverse the entire science of astronomy; but sacred scripture tells us that Joshua commanded the sun to stand still, and not the earth." Luther is referring to Joshua, chapter 10.


Not on the subject of Copernicus, but a quote on the age of the world.

"We know, on the authority of Moses, that longer than six thousand years the world did not exist."

Regarding the inspiration of scripture:
"We should throw the Epistle of James out of this school [the University of Wittenberg]....
This is not really on the subject, but does speak to the issue that not everyone agrees with what should be and what should not be included in scripture.

A quote from Calvin
"Who will venture to place the authority of Copernicus above that of the Holy Spirit?" He is citing Psalm 93:1 in his Commentary on Genesis

and from the same
"We indeed are not ignorant, that the circuit of the heavens is finite, and that the earth, like a little globe, is placed in the center."

"The eyes are witnesses that the heavens revolve in the space of twenty-four hours. But certain men, either from the love of novelty, or to make a display of ingenuity, have concluded that the earth moves; and they maintain that neither the eighth sphere nor the sun revolves.... Now, it is a want of honesty and decency to assert such notions publicly, and the example is pernicious. It is the part of a good mind to accept the truth as revealed by God and to acquiesce in it."
-- Melanchthon, emphasizing Ecclesiastes 1:4-5


Some of the quotes Luther and others cited or may have cited are:
Ps 19:4-5 where the heavens are described as a tent and the sun "a champion rejoicing to run his course." According to the Hebrew view of the universe, the sky was a solid dome under which the planets including the sun moved around the fixed earth. My understanding from a variety fo sources is that they believed in a flat earth, which most Christians later replaced with a fixed but spherical earth at the center of the "sphere of stars." (See Kuhn, for example) This belief was influenced by Aristotle and also the dominant Ptolemaic astronomical system. It is worth noting Genesis 1:6, where God talks about establishing the expanse of sky between the "waters above and the waters below," the former being the source of rain.

Matthew 5:45 " He causes his sun to rise on the evel and the good . . ."

Ps. 104:5 "He set the earth on its foundations; it can never be moved". This idea occurs in a number of other passages.

Ps. 104:19 "The moon marks off the seasons, and the sun knows when to go down."

Ecclesiastes 1:5 "The sun rises and the sun sets, and hurries back to where it rises. The wind blows to the south and turns to the north . . ."

Job 38:4 "Where were you when I laid the earth's foundations? Tell me, if you understand."

"And Isaiah the prophet cried unto the Lord: and he brought the shadow ten degrees backward by which it had gone down in the dial of Ahaz."
-- 2 Kings 20:11

Many years later, of course, we have the more famous events surrounding Galileo.

"... And whereas it has also come to the knowledge of the said Congregation that the Pythagorean doctrine -- which is false and altogether opposed to the Holy Scripture -- of the motion of the Earth and the immobility of the Sun, which is also taught by Nicolaus Copernicus in De Revolutionibus Orbium Coelestium, and by Diego de Zuñiga On Job, is now being spread abroad and accepted by many... Therefore, in order that this opinion may not insinuate itself any further to the prejudice of Catholic truth, the Holy Congregation has decreed that the said Nicolaus Copernicus, De Revolutionibus Orbium, and Diego de Zuñiga, On Job, be suspended until they are corrected."
-- The Roman Catholic Church, from The Decree of the Roman Catholic Congregation of the Index which condemned De Revolutionibus on March 5, 1616

Quotes from Cardinal Bellarmine, who communicated the decree personally to Galileo, can be found in "The Crime of Galileo" by Giorgio de Santillana.


Now, I am not saying that any of these individuals should be deprecated for their quotes or for not accepting the Copernican system. I am also not saying that there understanding of scripture were necessary. Obviously, we have all made our peace with Copernicus and I am certainly not throwing away my bible because of what other people believed it said. My only point is that many people in Copernicus' day and for 100 year or more afterwards believed that Copernicanism was unscriptural.

If we can reconcile Copernicanism with the Bible and Christianity, why not biological evolution?

Consider John 6:63. "The Spirit gives life; the flesh counts for nothing. The words I have spoken to you are spirit and they are life."

It seems to me a reasonable implication of this is that God cares not at all whether we believe in evolution or not. How our flesh got here is not important. What is important is our spiritual being, and it is to this aspect of ourselves that Jesus addresses us. When we are "created in his image," I think this can only mean His spiritual image, as God is spirit.

[steen]

As long as we can agree that the Bible is not literally accurate, and that arguing against science per "But the Bible makes this statement of scientific character" is invalid, then I am happy to leave Pi behind. And then we can start looking at Genesis.

Genesis gives a description of a progression, somewhat out of order, of the origin of the universe. So does science. The universe, the solar system, Earth and life, as well as changes in life, all have happened on a continuum over a very long time. The Bible, being not a science textbook, is not exactly precise in its description (eg bats before other mammals, plants before sunlight etc), but does get it right that things happened over time rather than in one instance. This is consistent with the scientific data. In this case, science has been able to refine the "data" of Genesis to become much more correct and accurate, (just as is the case with Pi), and as such, science has helped us with the accuracy of how these changes occurred. Other points in Genesis are more contradictory, such as the "worldwide flood, which is contradicted by factual scientific data, but in no ways demean the message of the Biblical allegorical story of Noah, that by following God, you obtain salvation and rebirth.

But again, trying to get scientific accuracy out of the Bible on that part is like trying to pi to be 3.0 based on literal text.

So science and Genesis are not contradictory, except under the case of very strict literacy, which then also leads to conflict with most other things in the world around us, thus showing that extreme creationist literalism is invalid from the get-go.

Hence, more enlightened, lest absolutist religions have found no conflict between creation and the SToE. Creationist literalists, on the other hand, DO claim such conflict, showing how marginalized they are in the real world.

Hence the attacks of evolution from "Christians" really is attacks from radical and ignorant militants, as is evidenced in their absolutist claims directly contradicted by actual evidence from the world around us.[/b]

[QED]

Hence the attacks of evolution from "Christians" really is attacks from radical and ignorant militants, as is evidenced in their absolutist claims directly contradicted by actual evidence from the world around us.

You will notice, however, that there is a remarkable symmetry to this type of statement. Evidence from the world around us is processed by human minds using different interpretational filters. So to some, you might also appear to be a radical militant brandishing absolutist claims. Justice in this world is in short-supply, but there it is. To break this symmetry requires more than a raised voice. Distinctions have to be drawn that cannot be reflected back in stalemate.

You have to have some sympathy with people who go by the immediate appearances of the world. Very few people get first-hand experience of the sort of ground-breaking science that often reveals the world to be counter-intuitive. The ones involved in the sciences know from their own experiences how deceptive appearances can be.

It's an interesting question then, when contemplating the validity of that written in Genesis, as to whether we would expect the authors to be party to the underlying truth of the natural world versus it's outward appearances.

[Curious]

If we are to read Genesis literally then why would God create the world,which is by all accounts, of the utmost importance, so insignificant compared to the rest of the universe? God created all the stars in the sky on the third day yet it took considerably longer to create the earth and it's inhabitants. Compared to the work involved creating the rest of the universe the earth should have been a walk in the park. How could there be a day before the sun? What made the division between light and darkness to create night and day? If we are to say the day is not a literal day, then to hold the rest literally makes no sense.If ,as some say, the light was an aspect of God's spirit then the darkness would indicate an absence of spirit. Then why call this night? The chronology of the earth, sun, moon, stars and the animals(including humans) as well as plant life is all proven beyond any reasonable doubt to be incorrect. Of course this does not in any way prove that there is no God but it is pretty compelling evidence that the Genesis version of creation is not literal fact.

[QED]

The chronology of the earth, sun, moon, stars and the animals(including humans) as well as plant life is all proven beyond any reasonable doubt to be incorrect. Of course this does not in any way prove that there is no God.

I agree. If only everyone would agree with this then the debate could move on to more worthy issues. On a personal note I wouldn't put myself beyond persuasion if arguments for the existence of god were found within the consensus view of nature as held by the best science available. If evidence is available it certainly isn't going to come from any biblical account that we are already aware of. I would have though that this much was obvious, and people would have moved on by now.

[steen]

Hence the attacks of evolution from "Christians" really is attacks from radical and ignorant militants, as is evidenced in their absolutist claims directly contradicted by actual evidence from the world around us.

You will notice, however, that there is a remarkable symmetry to this type of statement. Evidence from the world around us is processed by human minds using different interpretational filters. So to some, you might also appear to be a radical militant brandishing absolutist claims. Justice in this world is in short-supply, but there it is. To break this symmetry requires more than a raised voice. Distinctions have to be drawn that cannot be reflected back in stalemate.

Hmm, yes you are right. I'll go ponder.

[Philip J. Rayment]

I've brought up this question on a number of threads, and thought it might be worth its own discussion.

The question is:

Why should we (or do you, as the case may be) accept the literal '6-day creation' interpretation of Genesis as the only legitimate interpretation, and not accept the literal interpretation made by many in the 16th and 17th centuries who said that the Copernican system was counter to Holy Scripture?

This seems to be as good a thread as any to (all but) begin posting on this forum.

The obvious reason for accepting a literal understanding of the six days of creation is because (a) that is clearly what the author intended, and (b) that is clearly what Jesus understood.

The reason for not accepting the understanding that some people had regarding Copernicus is that (a) we have more information available on that today, combined with (b) the Bible does not teach geocentrism.

Stated in another way:

If Martin Luther was wrong about the solar system, why not those who claim evolution is not compatible with the Bible?

Hypothetically, we could be, I suppose. It is a matter of weighing the arguments for and against and seeing what stacks up. But I would contend that the argument that evolution and the Bible are incompatible is overwhelming and very clear.

I have often asked creationists why it is not possible that the literal interpretation of Genesis 1 and 2 is incorrect, when we know that the literal interprations of Martin Luther, John Calvin, not to mention the Catholic heirarchy, concerning the immobility of the earth were wrong.

So if someone who believes the Bible to be accurate is wrong on a point, why does that imply that others that hold the Bible to be accurate can also be wrong? The two questions are not related.

My question is really for those who insist there is no other possible interpretation of Genesis other than the YEC version.

I qualify, even if I wouldn't word it that way myself.

My assumption is not that all literal interpretations are wrong, only that this is a definite possibility, ...

Yes, and it is also possible that I am wrong in believing that the United States exists, or that water boils at 100 degrees celsius, or that the sun is actually blue.

...and has demonstrably occurred.

But someone being wrong in one area has no bearing on whether someone else is wrong in another area.

[Philip J. Rayment]

Aren't you (and the other creationists) just fighting the last stages of a rear guard action against science? Isn't this the End Times (to coin a phrase) of creationism?

Absolutely not. First, creationists have no problem with science, only with the atheistic creation myths masquerading as science. Second, creationism is going from strength to strength. It's certainly not "end times" for it.

With regards to Protestants, I think you also make a good point. My understanding is that modern 'literalistic creationism' is not much more than 100 years old.

It depends on how you define "modern literalistic creationism". By definition, "modern literalistic creationism" can't be very old, can it? Modern creationism in most respects dates to the publication of The Genesis Flood in 1963 I think it was. But 6-day creationism has historically always been understood by Bible-believers.

The insistence on a 6-day creation was not as prevalent among fundamentalists before Darwin as it is today.

Probably because it wasn't disputed as much back then! Six-day creation was the accepted norm.

Creationism as we know it today arose out of the 7th day adventist sect before spreading to other fundamentalist denominations and churches.

Creationism existed before SDA George McCready Price. It did not start with him.

I would agree with steen that the BIble is not a science textbook.

Which is good. Science textbooks frequently need revision.

My question really is, since we know those who took it as such in the 16th century were wrong, why would we insist today that it is scientifically accurate with respect to creation?

Because the issues are unrelated, and because the Bible's teaching on creation is clearly at odds with evolution. Biblical creationists claim that they are right because of the evidence (Biblical and other), not because of any claim on infallibility. If creationists were claiming to be infallible, then showing that a creationist was wrong would prove that they were not infallible. But creationists are not claiming that.

[Philip J. Rayment]

This really is a puzzling question. As has been show here, the bible is not a math text; it is not an astronomy text. Nor is it even possible to take Genesis literally, what with the flood destroying every living thing, but at the same time allowing olive trees to survive.

But Genesis does not claim that the flood destroyed every living thing! It claims to have destroyed all land-dwelling air-breathing animal life that wasn't on the ark. Olive trees don't fit that category. And nobody claims that any olive trees survived intact and in place. Clearly this was new growth following the flood waters dropping enough.

It is very curious to me that it is possible for anyone to call their interpretation of the bible to be "literalist" unless they are flat-earthers and, perhaps, Texas legislators, who passed a law some time ago that from now on, Pi really will be 3.0. In general, biblical literalists pick and choose what to be literal about, what to treat as allegory, and what to ignore altogether.

We "pick and choose" on the basis of the context and the language. If I tell you that I'm coming over for a visit, but not just yet because its raining cats and dogs, you "pick and choose" that it is literally true that I will be coming for a visit, but it is not literally true that felines and canines are falling from the sky. In other words, you can recognise metaphor in the language, and recognising that legitimate semantic construction cannot fairly be described as "picking and choosing".

[Philip J. Rayment]

I guess one question would be why you feel there is no reasonable way to claim the Bible presents geocentrism? How would you address the particular verses quoted in my original post?

Without dealing with each one individually, at a quick look they all appear to be (a) nothing to do with this issue (one or two of them), (b) metaphor or poetic language (a couple more), or (c) phenomenological language. That we (including astronomers) still today refer to the sun "rising" and "setting" doesn't mean that we believe that it is the sun that is moving. Thus the Bible talking of the appearance of the sun's movements from the viewpoint of someone on earth does not mean that the Bible is teaching geocentrism.

A more general question would relate to how we distinguish between which passages should be interpreted literally and which not so.

According to the intent of the authors and the way it would have been understood by the readers of his time. Not by the way a western 21st-century person would read a newspaper or a science journal.

Part of the problem, in my mind, is that I don't see a way to infallibly interpret what the 'mind of God' is based on the text.

God was capable of conveying to man the ideas that He wanted to convey. So in that sense, we don't need to understand the mind of God any more than we are capable of.

I would agree there is a distinction between the level of knowledge of the authors and the actual intended content of the revelation by God. Part of the problem, in my view, is that the level of knowledge of the human authors limits the expression of God's revelation. I think this is part of what happened in the passage on Pi, and I would suggest also happened in the Genesis account of creation. A Hebrew author of 500 to 2500 B.C. would not have been able to understand a lot of what we know today about the nature and structure of the universe.

That is an evolutionary view of creation! The Biblical teaching is that man was created without fault or blemish, but because of the Fall, creation has gone downhill ever since. Genesis records that Adam was able to communicate with God and was able to name all the animals that God brought him to name (NB: not every species of every living thing). Adam was clearly intelligent right from the beginning. We have 6000 years of accumulated knowledge which the Bible writers didn't have, but if anything, they would have been more capable of understanding the nature of the universe than us, assuming that they had some way of acquiring the knowledge

This brings a question to my mind. To what extent does the central intention of the author (or God) in writing a passage determine how we should interpret it?

The intention(s) of the authors should be the prime factor, but keep in mind that there could be more than one purpose.

With respect to Genesis, my contention would be that the intention is to portray God as the 'ultimate cause' of the universe and everything therein, and to indicate that there is a special relationship between God and man.

Hebrew scholars disagree that this is all that is intended:

...probably, so far as I know, there is no professor of Hebrew or Old Testament at any world-class university who does not believe that the writer(s) of Genesis 1–11 intended to convey to their readers the ideas that: creation took place in a series of six days which were the same as the days of 24 hours we now experience, the figures contained in the Genesis genealogies provided by simple addition a chronology from the beginning of the world up to later stages in the biblical story, and Noah’s flood was understood to be world-wide and extinguish all human and animal life except for those in the ark.’

With regards to the latter, the central message is a spiritual and moral one, rather than physical or biological. I do not see the central message as inconsistent with evolution at all.

Actually, one of the "central" messages is that creation was originally "very good", but was corrupted by the sin of man, which introduced death, suffering, and decay to creation. Evolution, in contrast, has death as a requirement for man to evolve. Even just on this "central message", the Bible and evolution are diametrically opposed.

I would disagree that Genesis 1-2 gives a 'scientifically accurate' presentation. Of course, I am open to someone making an interpretation that harmonizes it with the scientific evidence we have available. I think steen, jerickson, and I all agree that the YEC interpretation would not be scientifically accurate.

You three might, but I certainly don't.

How can Genesis 1 be shown to be scientifically accurate based on the evidence we have?

What evidence is in conflict? (I can think of plenty of things that you might suggest, but I'd rather answer things that you have in mind instead of things that others may claim.)

[Philip J. Rayment]

As long as we can agree that the Bible is not literally accurate, and that arguing against science per "But the Bible makes this statement of scientific character" is invalid, ...

The Bible is literally accurate when not using metaphor, parable, etc.

...then I am happy to leave Pi behind.

You should be happy to anyway. jerickson314 has clearly shown that although the Bible is not as precise on pi as you would like, it is not "inaccurate".

Genesis gives a description of a progression, somewhat out of order, of the origin of the universe.

And what reason do you have for claiming that it is out of order?

So does science.

More accurately, scientists who reject the Biblical record.

The universe, the solar system, Earth and life, as well as changes in life, all have happened on a continuum over a very long time.

According to the creation myth that you believe in.

The Bible, being not a science textbook, ...

But nevertheless accurate where it records history.

...is not exactly precise in its description (eg bats before other mammals, plants before sunlight etc), ...

That is a matter of accuracy, not precision. And you are really saying that the Bible is wrong because it doesn't fit with your preferred creation myth.

...but does get it right that things happened over time rather than in one instance.

Talk about trivialising the differences!

This is consistent with the scientific data.

You mean that it agrees with what you believe.

In this case, science has been able to refine the "data" of Genesis to become much more correct and accurate, (just as is the case with Pi), ...

No, again, the matter of pi is about precision, not accuracy.

...and as such, science has helped us with the accuracy of how these changes occurred.

No, evolutionary belief contradicts the biblical record.

Other points in Genesis are more contradictory, such as the "worldwide flood, which is contradicted by factual scientific data, ...

Again no. Again, it is contradicted by a different origins myth deriving from a different worldview.

but in no ways demean the message of the Biblical allegorical story of Noah, that by following God, you obtain salvation and rebirth.

So you are claiming that contradicting the basis of a principle has no effect on the veracity of that principle?

So science and Genesis are not contradictory, ...

Only evolutionists claim that they are.

...except under the case of very strict literacy, which then also leads to conflict with most other things in the world around us, thus showing that extreme creationist literalism is invalid from the get-go.

Hence, more enlightened, lest absolutist religions have found no conflict between creation and the SToE.

Good arguing technique. Use flattering terms of those you agree with and not of those you disagree with. Not logical, but sometimes effective.

Creationist literalists, on the other hand, DO claim such conflict, ...

As I've already said, creationists do NOT claim conflict between science and creation. Your characterisation of your view as "scientific" and the creationary view as not scientific is attempting to gain the intellectual high ground without actually addressing the issues.

...showing how marginalized they are in the real world.

Probably more people believe in creation than evolution, if you look worldwide. It is the atheists that are maginalised, if anything.

Hence the attacks of evolution from "Christians" really is attacks from radical and ignorant militants, as is evidenced in their absolutist claims directly contradicted by actual evidence from the world around us.[/b]

More bluster, and lack of any real argument. What "evidence"?