Science AND Genesis

[DaveD49]

This is an offshoot from the "Science vs. Genesis" topic but it covers a different main premise. That topic suggested a conflict between the two. My topic shows where there is agreement. I think that everyone would agree that it would be extremely rare for any 4000 year old document, especially one that existed for thousands of years in oral form before it was written down, to agree with ANY modern scientific concept. The very first chapter of the first book of the Bible can be seen to agree with five of them. (Not only that, but the very first Hebrew word of the first chapter of the Bible reveals a stunning prophecy which came true 2000 years later, but that is another subject.) The five modern scientific concepts and theories are the concept of a slowly developing Earth, the concept of "super-continents" such as Pangea, abiogenesis, and evolution. None of these concepts were familiar to the people of the age when it was written.

Slowly forming Earth

Now the earth was formless and void, there was darkness over the deep, and God's spirit hovered over the water. God said 'Let there be light', and their was light.

(Gen1:2-3)

Imagine for a minute that you were sitting on the planet at the time it was first developing from slowly settling dust, moisture and stone. You would be able to see nothing, because the dust and moisture in the sky would block out all to sun's rays. Over a loooong period of time eventually as more dust settled the light of the sun could be seen even though you still could not see the sun itself. I have read where scientists have said that during this period of time it rained for over 10,000 years. We are in what the Bible calls the first day. The sun and the moon do not become visible until the fourth day. (BTW the Hebrew word interpreted as "day" can also be interpreted as "age" or "eon". Look it up.)

Super-Continents

God said, 'Let the waters under the heavens come together in a single mass and let dry land appear'. And so it was. God called the dry land 'earth' the the mass of waters 'seas'

(Gen1:9-10)

As more dust settled, dry land appeared starting in one place with one land mass.

Abiogenesis

This is a discredited scientific theory about the origins of life from the primordial goo, or "dirt", but it seems that the Bible agrees with it.

God said, 'Let the earth produce vegetation: seed-bearing plants, and fruit trees...

(Gen 1:11)

God said, Let the waters teem with living creatures, and let birds fly about the earth within the vault of heaven.

(Gen 1:20)

God said, Let the earth produce every kind of living creature: cattle, reptiles, and every kind of wild beast.

Gen 1:24

Note that in each case it does not say that God "zapped" them into being, but rather caused the EARTH or the WATERS to produce them. Note also the Bible also states

Evolution

Note please that in general the order of appearance of various living things corresponds to an evolutionary line-up. Simple plants, sea life, "great sea monsters", reptiles, mammals and man.

[Jose Fly]

Dave, I don't think you appreciate the situation with the Wald quote. Not only is it out of context (Wald was speaking to spontaneous generation, not abiogenesis), it's also 68 years old! Do you understand what that means? It means the "here we are" part was specifically made in the context of the state of the science as it existed well over half a century ago.

Do you think origins research has advanced a bit since then?

Further, are you aware of the "God of the Gaps" fallacy?

Also, have you ever debated a Muslim about the Quran? I ask because I wonder if you're aware that they make the same basic argument ("Our holy book says X, which science has confirmed, which proves it is divine").

[DaveD49]

I do not think it wise to ignore new ways of thinking about Scripture simply because some people will not understand it. That is like the atheistic scientist who knew that abiogenesis was impossible but yet chose to believe in it because he did not want to believe in the only alternative which was God's creative act (George Wald). Science can only tell us how God did what He did. There can be no conflict between science and faith.

I agree that according to Genesis that in its origins that the Earth was "formless and void" (aka a dust cloud). That does not contradict the concept of God's creation ex nihilo. God created the universe ex nihilo, but also created the science by which it runs. Earth came into existence some 10 billion years after the birth of the universe.

I'm not ignoring new ways of thinking about scripture (if anything, I think about the bible in highly unconventional ways). Rather, I think it's naïve to think that the writers had any notion of modern science, and that to look for scientific agreement in the pages of Genesis 1 is, at best, a side-bar activity, or an intellectual curiosity. It is not a discussion we should take seriously in any shape or form. (i.e., Either holding the lack of scientific agreement against the bible, as many do, or trying to force-fit what science says into biblical constraints, as many others do.)

The lack of conflict between science and faith that you suggest here should be through properly identifying the domains of each, and dissociating one from the other in the process. i.e., The domain of science is the physical world, so render unto science what is proper to science. The domain of scripture is more about how we should shape our lives and the physical world around us... That is what we see happening in Genesis 1 for instance, and everything that follows.

I agree for the most part. But while I agree that Scripture has a big role in shaping our lives, I do not see how it would be useful about shaping the physical world around us. That too I would say falls into the realm of science. Certainly the shaping of the world should be done with moral standards in the forefront.

[TRANSPONDER]

[Replying to DaveD49 in post #50]

You are still quotemining Wald out of context. He is conceding that at first sight life from non -life seems counter intuitive, but in full he is saying that is likely what did happen. The evidence is against the description in Genesis and that at least evolution began with the simple structures found in the Pre Cambrian fossils. On top of that the experiments and hypothetical mechanism makes it far from impossible, and therefore it is a far, far better thing to propose than a god doing an unexplained act of magic.

[DaveD49]

[Replying to DaveD49 in post #50]

You are still quotemining Wald out of context. He is conceding that at first sight life from non -life seems counter intuitive, but in full he is saying that is likely what did happen. The evidence is against the description in Genesis and that at least evolution began with the simple structures found in the Pre Cambrian fossils. On top of that the experiments and hypothetical mechanism makes it far from impossible, and therefore it is a far, far better thing to propose than a god doing an unexplained act of magic.

The second quote from Wald that I referred to was given to me by another user who also referred to the quote being altered. He referred me to this site where the actual (?) quote: https://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/quotes ... rt1-4.html It can be found by scrolling down the paragraph beginning with "We tell this story to beginning students ... ".

As I pointed out I did not say that Genesis gave a scientific description of evolution. All it gives is a rough order of the appearances of various species that can be seen to agree with it. If you can see that there is at least a modicum of agreement then you have a question. One agreement to modern science certainly could be overlooked as chance wording, but 5 agreements to modern science in the first chapter of a more than 4,000 year old book must at least seem totally improbable. It points to inspiration; it doesn't prove it. And I most certainly do not believe that God used an "unexplained act of magic". He willed it to happen. That could be especially true if the discussion in another topic about Einstein's quote about "Reality is an illusion" is true.

[TRANSPONDER]

[Replying to DaveD49 in post #50]

You are still quotemining Wald out of context. He is conceding that at first sight life from non -life seems counter intuitive, but in full he is saying that is likely what did happen. The evidence is against the description in Genesis and that at least evolution began with the simple structures found in the Pre Cambrian fossils. On top of that the experiments and hypothetical mechanism makes it far from impossible, and therefore it is a far, far better thing to propose than a god doing an unexplained act of magic.

The second quote from Wald that I referred to was given to me by another user who also referred to the quote being altered. He referred me to this site where the actual (?) quote: https://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/quotes ... rt1-4.html It can be found by scrolling down the paragraph beginning with "We tell this story to beginning students ... ".

As I pointed out I did not say that Genesis gave a scientific description of evolution. All it gives is a rough order of the appearances of various species that can be seen to agree with it. If you can see that there is at least a modicum of agreement then you have a question. One agreement to modern science certainly could be overlooked as chance wording, but 5 agreements to modern science in the first chapter of a more than 4,000 year old book must at least seem totally improbable. It points to inspiration; it doesn't prove it. And I most certainly do not believe that God used an "unexplained act of magic". He willed it to happen. That could be especially true if the discussion in another topic about Einstein's quote about "Reality is an illusion" is true.

Yes, that's a long discussion with references to misused quotes and references to some Physicists or biologists who appear to express incredulity that life could rise from non - life. At the most, their incredulity, whether or not they '\have Faith' (as it says) that life Did arise from on -life, notwithstanding their scientific work, a failure of imagination does not obliterate the validity of the hypothesis that, given the ubiquity of biochemicals and water in the universe, the hot hydrocarbon soup the earth was for 2 billion years in the Archon and the existence of a hypothetical method of Abiogenesis, means that 'impossible' in not a word that applies, and if it is possible, then Goddunnit it NOT the only hypothesis on the table, though I concede it is still the gap for a god. Name you own, because even if Goddunnit it true (though Genesis evidently isn't) you still have to prove which one. If any.

And, no, no. Despite your Faithbased special pleading, we cannot overlook that Genesis is wrong enough that the hypothesis that best fits is that it is the best guess of the time, not that the writer knew anything about it.

[DaveD49]

[Replying to DaveD49 in post #50]

You are still quotemining Wald out of context. He is conceding that at first sight life from non -life seems counter intuitive, but in full he is saying that is likely what did happen. The evidence is against the description in Genesis and that at least evolution began with the simple structures found in the Pre Cambrian fossils. On top of that the experiments and hypothetical mechanism makes it far from impossible, and therefore it is a far, far better thing to propose than a god doing an unexplained act of magic.

The second quote from Wald that I referred to was given to me by another user who also referred to the quote being altered. He referred me to this site where the actual (?) quote: https://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/quotes ... rt1-4.html It can be found by scrolling down the paragraph beginning with "We tell this story to beginning students ... ".

As I pointed out I did not say that Genesis gave a scientific description of evolution. All it gives is a rough order of the appearances of various species that can be seen to agree with it. If you can see that there is at least a modicum of agreement then you have a question. One agreement to modern science certainly could be overlooked as chance wording, but 5 agreements to modern science in the first chapter of a more than 4,000 year old book must at least seem totally improbable. It points to inspiration; it doesn't prove it. And I most certainly do not believe that God used an "unexplained act of magic". He willed it to happen. That could be especially true if the discussion in another topic about Einstein's quote about "Reality is an illusion" is true.

Yes, that's a long discussion with references to misused quotes and references to some Physicists or biologists who appear to express incredulity that life could rise from non - life. At the most, their incredulity, whether or not they '\have Faith' (as it says) that life Did arise from on -life, notwithstanding their scientific work, a failure of imagination does not obliterate the validity of the hypothesis that, given the ubiquity of biochemicals and water in the universe, the hot hydrocarbon soup the earth was for 2 billion years in the Archon and the existence of a hypothetical method of Abiogenesis, means that 'impossible' in not a word that applies, and if it is possible, then Goddunnit it NOT the only hypothesis on the table, though I concede it is still the gap for a god. Name you own, because even if Goddunnit it true (though Genesis evidently isn't) you still have to prove which one. If any.

And, no, no. Despite your Faithbased special pleading, we cannot overlook that Genesis is wrong enough that the hypothesis that best fits is that it is the best guess of the time, not that the writer knew anything about it.

Proving "which one" is pretty simple seeing that there is only one. There can be one and only "Supreme" Being. Are there other spiritual beings other than God? I certainly believe that there are. And I agree that if you take the Genesis story literally... six days for Creation... then I would agree with you that it did not happen that way. And it is not "wrong enough" but the surprising places where it is "right enough" to be seen to agree with modern science. We are talking about a 4,000 year old book which existed as oral tradition for hundreds if not thousands of years before it was written down. There should be nothing right about it at all, and yet, there it is, as I pointed out seemingly agreeing with 5 modern scientific ideas without any folding, bending or manipulation. To my knowledge there isn't any other ancient text like it anywhere.

Would you be willing enough to at least admit that it has peaked you interest far enough to at least consider it possible? I ask this because if you agree to at least that, then my next question coming about the prophesy contained in the very first word of Genesis would have to be a "wow" moment, unless you are already aware of it.

[TRANSPONDER]

[Replying to DaveD49 in post #50]

You are still quotemining Wald out of context. He is conceding that at first sight life from non -life seems counter intuitive, but in full he is saying that is likely what did happen. The evidence is against the description in Genesis and that at least evolution began with the simple structures found in the Pre Cambrian fossils. On top of that the experiments and hypothetical mechanism makes it far from impossible, and therefore it is a far, far better thing to propose than a god doing an unexplained act of magic.

The second quote from Wald that I referred to was given to me by another user who also referred to the quote being altered. He referred me to this site where the actual (?) quote: https://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/quotes ... rt1-4.html It can be found by scrolling down the paragraph beginning with "We tell this story to beginning students ... ".

As I pointed out I did not say that Genesis gave a scientific description of evolution. All it gives is a rough order of the appearances of various species that can be seen to agree with it. If you can see that there is at least a modicum of agreement then you have a question. One agreement to modern science certainly could be overlooked as chance wording, but 5 agreements to modern science in the first chapter of a more than 4,000 year old book must at least seem totally improbable. It points to inspiration; it doesn't prove it. And I most certainly do not believe that God used an "unexplained act of magic". He willed it to happen. That could be especially true if the discussion in another topic about Einstein's quote about "Reality is an illusion" is true.

Yes, that's a long discussion with references to misused quotes and references to some Physicists or biologists who appear to express incredulity that life could rise from non - life. At the most, their incredulity, whether or not they '\have Faith' (as it says) that life Did arise from on -life, notwithstanding their scientific work, a failure of imagination does not obliterate the validity of the hypothesis that, given the ubiquity of biochemicals and water in the universe, the hot hydrocarbon soup the earth was for 2 billion years in the Archon and the existence of a hypothetical method of Abiogenesis, means that 'impossible' in not a word that applies, and if it is possible, then Goddunnit it NOT the only hypothesis on the table, though I concede it is still the gap for a god. Name you own, because even if Goddunnit it true (though Genesis evidently isn't) you still have to prove which one. If any.

And, no, no. Despite your Faithbased special pleading, we cannot overlook that Genesis is wrong enough that the hypothesis that best fits is that it is the best guess of the time, not that the writer knew anything about it.

Proving "which one" is pretty simple seeing that there is only one. There can be one and only "Supreme" Being. Are there other spiritual beings other than God? I certainly believe that there are. And I agree that if you take the Genesis story literally... six days for Creation... then I would agree with you that it did not happen that way. And it is not "wrong enough" but the surprising places where it is "right enough" to be seen to agree with modern science. We are talking about a 4,000 year old book which existed as oral tradition for hundreds if not thousands of years before it was written down. There should be nothing right about it at all, and yet, there it is, as I pointed out seemingly agreeing with 5 modern scientific ideas without any folding, bending or manipulation. To my knowledge there isn't any other ancient text like it anywhere.

Would you be willing enough to at least admit that it has peaked you interest far enough to at least consider it possible? I ask this because if you agree to at least that, then my next question coming about the prophesy contained in the very first word of Genesis would have to be a "wow" moment, unless you are already aware of it.

As the old joke has it, a stopped clock is still right twice a day. That Genesis gets some guesses right does not validate Genesis. the Bible or God, rather it validates evolution, which is evident to us through the development of the simple (fish) to the complex (man). My interest in Genesis is no more than because it is claimed as true by people who ought to treat the validated evidence of palaeontology and geology with more respect than they do, and the persistent peddling to the public of such claims concerns rather than Interests me. There are people who want to banish the science from the science - class and teach these fairy - stories instead. Prophecy (claimed) interests me no more than that, that it can often be shown to be wrong, misrepresented and without any validity.

I even doubt your claim of oral tradition. I think the internal evidence of Genesis and Exodus, too, suggests that it was written in the 5th C B.C at the earliest. Rather it is Leviticus to Deuteronomy with it's repeated lists of social rules for the Hebrews (to stop them being absorbed by other cultures) that may be earlier, perhaps about the 10th c B.C, and even Kings to Isaiah looks to be based on historical records as far back as the 7th c BC.

And of course, since there is no scrap of decent evidence for any god or gods, a whole race of them is as likely as just one. Why should they have one supreme god? Did they have an election?

[theophile]

I do not think it wise to ignore new ways of thinking about Scripture simply because some people will not understand it. That is like the atheistic scientist who knew that abiogenesis was impossible but yet chose to believe in it because he did not want to believe in the only alternative which was God's creative act (George Wald). Science can only tell us how God did what He did. There can be no conflict between science and faith.

I agree that according to Genesis that in its origins that the Earth was "formless and void" (aka a dust cloud). That does not contradict the concept of God's creation ex nihilo. God created the universe ex nihilo, but also created the science by which it runs. Earth came into existence some 10 billion years after the birth of the universe.

I'm not ignoring new ways of thinking about scripture (if anything, I think about the bible in highly unconventional ways). Rather, I think it's naïve to think that the writers had any notion of modern science, and that to look for scientific agreement in the pages of Genesis 1 is, at best, a side-bar activity, or an intellectual curiosity. It is not a discussion we should take seriously in any shape or form. (i.e., Either holding the lack of scientific agreement against the bible, as many do, or trying to force-fit what science says into biblical constraints, as many others do.)

The lack of conflict between science and faith that you suggest here should be through properly identifying the domains of each, and dissociating one from the other in the process. i.e., The domain of science is the physical world, so render unto science what is proper to science. The domain of scripture is more about how we should shape our lives and the physical world around us... That is what we see happening in Genesis 1 for instance, and everything that follows.

I agree for the most part. But while I agree that Scripture has a big role in shaping our lives, I do not see how it would be useful about shaping the physical world around us. That too I would say falls into the realm of science. Certainly the shaping of the world should be done with moral standards in the forefront.

Isn't that what God does in Genesis 1? Shape the physical world? Science doesn't say how we should shape the world. All it can do is tell us what the results of our actions will be (like how we're shaping the world right now with greenhouse gases), and equip us with knowledge of the world that allows us to shape it according to our will.

So you are right: moral standards are in the forefront, i.e., how we should shape the world around us and our own lives. And that is the domain of scripture, not science.

[DaveD49]

I do not think it wise to ignore new ways of thinking about Scripture simply because some people will not understand it. That is like the atheistic scientist who knew that abiogenesis was impossible but yet chose to believe in it because he did not want to believe in the only alternative which was God's creative act (George Wald). Science can only tell us how God did what He did. There can be no conflict between science and faith.

I agree that according to Genesis that in its origins that the Earth was "formless and void" (aka a dust cloud). That does not contradict the concept of God's creation ex nihilo. God created the universe ex nihilo, but also created the science by which it runs. Earth came into existence some 10 billion years after the birth of the universe.

I'm not ignoring new ways of thinking about scripture (if anything, I think about the bible in highly unconventional ways). Rather, I think it's naïve to think that the writers had any notion of modern science, and that to look for scientific agreement in the pages of Genesis 1 is, at best, a side-bar activity, or an intellectual curiosity. It is not a discussion we should take seriously in any shape or form. (i.e., Either holding the lack of scientific agreement against the bible, as many do, or trying to force-fit what science says into biblical constraints, as many others do.)

The lack of conflict between science and faith that you suggest here should be through properly identifying the domains of each, and dissociating one from the other in the process. i.e., The domain of science is the physical world, so render unto science what is proper to science. The domain of scripture is more about how we should shape our lives and the physical world around us... That is what we see happening in Genesis 1 for instance, and everything that follows.

I agree for the most part. But while I agree that Scripture has a big role in shaping our lives, I do not see how it would be useful about shaping the physical world around us. That too I would say falls into the realm of science. Certainly the shaping of the world should be done with moral standards in the forefront.

Isn't that what God does in Genesis 1? Shape the physical world? Science doesn't say how we should shape the world. All it can do is tell us what the results of our actions will be (like how we're shaping the world right now with greenhouse gases), and equip us with knowledge of the world that allows us to shape it according to our will.

So you are right: moral standards are in the forefront, i.e., how we should shape the world around us and our own lives. And that is the domain of scripture, not science.

Science certainly tell us when we are screwing things up. The huge hole in the ozone layer that prompted banning of certain propellants, the greenhouse gases you mentioned, the fact that there is no difference between humans other than skin color and eye shapes. But I agree, both science and theology have their different places. But usually any time a scientist has made a theological statement or a theologian has made a scientific statement they have both been wrong.

[TRANSPONDER]

It's a neat little sidestep to get off how science says the world came to be and it wasn't as Genesis says and instead get onto the problems we have and blame science for that and somehow make out that this validates the Bible. It's a long time since we fell for that one, though it does work when you get two believers both agreeing with each other.