Creation model

[juliod]

OK, so I'm trying to get a grip on the Theory of Creation. (Not easy, even the people who claim it exists won't tell me anything about it.)

The question for this thread is how many species were there on the earth at each phase of history? The only figures I have are those of Woodmorappe (8000 species on the ark) and estimates of the number of species alive today (which I will call ">1 million").

So Bishop Ussher gives as this chronology (which isn't a theory, but is as close as I have come up with yet):

4004 BC Creation

2348 BC Flood

1491 BC Exodus

What I want to do is get some idea of the number of species at each stage:

4004 BC: ?

2348 BC and immediately after: ~8000

Present: > 1 million.

Now, it's important to note that there is no mention of massive speciation anywhere in recorded history. So I am assuming that the million+ species alive today evolved rapidly after 2348. Let's say one full millenium just as a round figure.

Also note that I am only considering the 1 million most conspicuous species. It is a real problem of determining how many there are because there are so many species of insect that we don't know about. They say there may be 30 million total species, mostly beetles.

So one question is, how many species were originally created? Just the 8000 on the ark? Or where there more? How many?

This is what I have so far:

Date Event # species
4004 Creation ?

2350 Flood ~8000

1350 hyper-evo >1 million

present >1 million

DanZ

[micatala]

I never said Genesis was a parable or that the Bible would have any references claiming it was. I only said that there is ample reason to consider Genesis 1 and 2 as allegorical, based on the actual text. There is even more reason to consider it as allegorical based on extra-biblical evidence. I realize you may not give extra-biblical evidence an credence in this case, but I do.

I will also point out that you still have not responded to the Copernican issue, where clearly many of those living in the 16th and 17th centuries did take the passages regarding the stability of the earth and the motion of the sun literally, whereas we do not do so today, mostly on the basis of extra-biblical evidence. Again I ask, if we do not take these passages literally, why is it necessary we interpret Genesis 1 and 2 in the particular literal way that you favor?

Again, I think your strawman accusation is unfounded. Yes, one might interpret the passage concerning the plants differently than I did in my post, but I would still maintain that if one wanted to make a very literal interpretation, that one could conclude from Genesis 2 that man was created before plants. My point is not that one must take it in a certain way, but that the passage is ambiguous enough, that one could make a variety of interpretations, and that an allegorical interpretation is certainly valid, especially based on what is written in the other passages. Moreover, given the extra-biblical evidence regarding earth's history, there is even more reason to interpret Genesis 1 and 2 allegorically, just as we do for the passages relevant to the Copernican theory.

Yes, the post is long, so if you do not want to address all the points, I would understand. To me, the most relevant point is the one related to my question on how our understanding of the Bible has changed since 1543 based on what we now know of the solar system.

[rjw]

It's very apparent that evo-minded individuals are what Peter is referring to.

He may not call them evos in black and white...but they sure do fit the bill

Gidday YEC,

You still avoid answering don’t you.

YEC:- It's very apparent that evo-minded individuals are what Peter is referring to.

How do you know this?

I gave you the conditions by which you could demonstrate your assertion. So why don’t you address those conditions rather than just doing a bit of post-hoc shoe-horning as in:-

YEC:- He may not call them evos in black and white...but they sure do fit the bill?


You claim to be a scholar don’t you?


Regards, Roland

[Jose]

If you evos want to consider Genesis as allegorical or a parable..have at it.

But, prior to doing so SHOW me where scripture says so or indicates that it is.

You see folks, I have presented scripture (lots of it) that shows Genesis was to be taken as literal....(and had been taken as literal)

So claim away. Presents your (allegorical)facts..or lack of facts.

Untill you can, your post are considered as mere rhetoric...much like the T.O.E.

This is such fun! You know, especially since we have discussed it in a variety of threads, that not everyone interprets the bible exactly the same way you do. Yet, we're all reading the same book! If different people have different interpretations, and if different denominations have different interpretations, then it sure looks like there's no single interpretation that is certain to be right. Maybe, even, bernee51 has it correctly, and it's a book of myth. There just is no independent confirmation that it isn't.

In other words, your quoting biblebits at us doesn't provide proof of anything. Nor would it provide proof of anything if I were to quote biblebits at you. It certainly hasn't had any effect on you for others to quote biblebits that contradict what you've said. That's because everyone has their own interpretation--so any arguments based on the bible are no more than rhetoric.

I will also point out that you still have not responded to the Copernican issue

You still avoid answering don’t you.

Another amusing observation is that we find these sorts of comments scattered through many threads. We ask YEC for clarification primarily in a rhetorical sense.

[micatala]

micatala wrote:
I will also point out that you still have not responded to the Copernican issue
rjw wrote:
You still avoid answering don’t you.

Another amusing observation is that we find these sorts of comments scattered through many threads. We ask YEC for clarification primarily in a rhetorical sense.

Yes, I fear my frustration is showing sometimes. I have allowed a lot of my time to get sucked up in following the threads and responding (I hope!) in a reasonable fashion, and when I don't feel the responses I'm getting are in the same spirit, I get a bit miffed.

I am also honestly curious how YEC might respond to the issue I've raised vis-a-vis the Copernican revolution. What say you YEC!?

[rjw]

Yes, I fear my frustration is showing sometimes. I have allowed a lot of my time to get sucked up in following the threads and responding (I hope!) in a reasonable fashion, and when I don't feel the responses I'm getting are in the same spirit, I get a bit miffed.

I know how you feel micatala.

I began this "adventure" some 6 to 7 years ago by debating, with my brother, a couple of local creationists (supposedly via an exchange of e-mails). They were the ones who put out the challenge. But they never showed up and replied to our e-mails - despite numerous promises to.

From there it went to an exchange of letters with scientists at AiG (Australia). While I did get responses from them, avoidance, misrepresentation, fallacious argument, goal post moving, then silence - was the norm.

Since those times I have been arguing with YECs on these boards. I used to put a lot of work into my postings but 90% of them would just disappear on the first posting. A few like YEC here, would pick on the most minor of points and even get those wrong. Only one or two would stand their ground and ague. But even then they would only answer one or two points they felt they could respond to. 99% of what I wrote would be ignored. And in responding, their replies would often be misrepresentations, bluff, goal post shifts etc.

I really only met about 3 or 5 decent and honest YECs.

For an awful lot of work, one gets minimum response from 99% of these people.

I have a reputation for being polite, tolerant and hard working yet lately I seem to have lost my patience a bit with these guardians of the truth.

It is a pity that such a sloppy science + theology + philosophy can have so big an impact in the US in particular.

Over the years I have read a few papers and articles by ex fundamentalists who tackle this issue of scholarship. To a person they agree that one cannot be a fundamentalist and a scholar at the same time.


I have yet to meet a fundamentalist who will argue without at least, adopting double standards and shifting the goal posts. Even the really decent ones do it. I can sort of understand why - it appears to be something deeply internal - done unconsciously to protect the faith.

The other rat-bags do those things plus a lot, lot worse.


Regards, Roland

[Jose]

Over the years I have read a few papers and articles by ex fundamentalists who tackle this issue of scholarship. To a person they agree that one cannot be a fundamentalist and a scholar at the same time.

Do you think you can find those articles again, and provide us with references? I'd be fascinated to read them. They are the kind of thing I would normally read, then set aside without jotting down the information of how to find it again. I hope you are more methodical than I am!

[micatala]

It is a pity that such a sloppy science + theology + philosophy can have so big an impact in the US in particular.

Part of why I continue the arguement, despite the frustration, is that, the current somewhat depressing situation you note notwithstanding, I have faith that the truth will eventually win out. All we can do is to proceed with as much integrity as we can muster.

[rjw]

Over the years I have read a few papers and articles by ex fundamentalists who tackle this issue of scholarship. To a person they agree that one cannot be a fundamentalist and a scholar at the same time.

Do you think you can find those articles again, and provide us with references? I'd be fascinated to read them. They are the kind of thing I would normally read, then set aside without jotting down the information of how to find it again. I hope you are more methodical than I am!

Hello Jose,

I can give you some references. While I do tend to index this information, the notion of fundamentalism and scholarship would not have been a topic for indexing. Like you I would have read it, thought it interesting, then lost the memory to the real topic I was researching.

However I do have this one specific reference:-

Grabbe, Lester L. “Fundamentalism and Scholarship: The Case of Daniel” in Scripture: Meaning and Method, Barry P Thompson (ed.), Hull University Press 1987.

This topic is chapter 9 in the book.

Grabbe notes at the start:-

“There are many biblical fundamentalists, primarily Christian but also Jewish, who regard themselves as no less scholars because of their religious presuppositions. And there are scholars, not fundamentalists, who accept these claims at face value. The question is, Can one be a fundamentalist and still claim the label ‘biblical scholar’?

Grabbe chose Daniel as a case to test this claim because, he argues, in many instances the issues are very complex and fundamentalist scholars can easily question conclusions in a manner that give a veneer to the title “scholar”. In Daniel however, the issues are “more clear-cut” yet the story is “very close to the sensitivities of most fundamentalists” allowing him to test his hypothesis that Fundamentalists cannot claim the title of “scholar”.

He notes on page 114 of the particular book I cite that he is an ex-fundamentalist. He grew up in the “Bible Belt” and attended a Bible college to the M.A. level. As a fundamentalist he considered “… scholarship was valid and necessary but true scholarship in no way conflicted with the truth of the Bible, while conversely, scholarship which did conflict was ultimately only ‘science falsely so-called”.

Grabbe concludes that “… despite noises to the contrary – fundamentalism is incompatible with scholarship.”

As for other references, my problem is the same as yours. I have read this comment about scholarship being the enemy of fundamentalism – but have not noted the references.

I can cite two other web based references which may be of use. At the risk of being terribly wrong, I would say that both sources would agree with my claim.

1) Glenn R Morton. Glenn is an ex-fundamentalist who is also a geologist. He is a very conservative Christian. He is very down on fundamentalism – particularly its ability to teach things that are not correct (with respect to geology), and go very silent when challenged on these things. He does have his own web-site. However I have met him on “The Theology Web” (http://www.theologyweb.com/). That site is basically run by YECs but it is a good site. Although heavily moderated, it is very fair and you can say anything providing you are prepared to back your claims up. Glenn accepts Big Bang, ancient earth, macro evolution, continental drift – you name it.
2) Kevin R. Heinke. Kevin is also ex-fundamentalist. He is an atheist and a geologist. He used to post at “No Answers in Genesis” (http://home.austarnet.com.au/stear/default.htm). He does not these days, however the moderator maintains a special section with Kevin’s work. NAiG is not moderated. Hence people let their hair down and many debates are little more than flame wars. Often though, interesting arguments and posts are presented. The site has a lot of alternative information that TWeb does not.

Do not get me wrong. I am not trying to push those sites in preference to this one. “Debating Christianity and Religion” is, like TWeb, well moderated and very fair – I think. I have not posted as much here. I would hate to pull anyone away from what I think is another good site.

Hope this helps.

Regards, Roland

PS congratulations on your debating style – knowledgeable, patient, well written and argued, considerate. I take my hat off to you.

[Jose]

Thanks, Roland! I've done a bit of Googling, to see if I can find additional references. I have not be entirely successful, though it is possible to find numerous third-party analyses. An interesting one is "An introduction to Michael D. Coogan, "The Great Gulf Between Scholars and the Pew," Bible Review, June 1994: 44-48, 55," which is at the bottom of this page. It is also amusing to read Keith Pavlischek's essay here. This is a review of a couple of books, in which he says:

"But I think we would do well to read these evangelical authors together, for their diagnosis of the sorry state of evangelical scholarship--or, more accurately, their analysis of why American evangelicals have such a hard time nurturing the habits of mind required to produce quality scholarship--complement each other."

These are not quite what you've described, but are illuminating, nonetheless.

[nikolayevich]

Hello rjw,

Nice to see you posting again (I noticed there was a while where I did not see activity from you).

Just a few words on your reference to "a-scholarly" fundamentalists:

However I do have this one specific reference:-

Grabbe, Lester L. “Fundamentalism and Scholarship: The Case of Daniel” in Scripture: Meaning and Method, Barry P Thompson (ed.), Hull University Press 1987.

This topic is chapter 9 in the book.

Grabbe notes at the start:-

“There are many biblical fundamentalists, primarily Christian but also Jewish, who regard themselves as no less scholars because of their religious presuppositions. And there are scholars, not fundamentalists, who accept these claims at face value. The question is, Can one be a fundamentalist and still claim the label ‘biblical scholar’?

A suitable question, if albeit somewhat ad hominem in premise... Most who assert this do so because their "view is offended" (to use evolutionist parlance) that the Bible is not literal or accurate, and rather than simply questioning the opposing view, they go for the credentials of their opponents.

Grabbe chose Daniel as a case to test this claim because, he argues, in many instances the issues are very complex and fundamentalist scholars can easily question conclusions in a manner that give a veneer to the title “scholar”.

I often find when critics use language insinuating that those holding alternative assessments (to theirs) on a given problem are "faking" or "unworthy" of the title which they themselves hold, it is at the very least an arrogated assumption which leaves this reader questioning the motive of the critic himself. That is to say, his motive betrays him, and his message is that the fundamentalist's message betrays him. Therefore we are no further than that both have motives, and that the one is accusing the other of it to the degree that his scholarship is in question. Before we dig to the heart of the matter, the crux has been touched.

In Daniel however, the issues are “more clear-cut” yet the story is “very close to the sensitivities of most fundamentalists” allowing him to test his hypothesis that Fundamentalists cannot claim the title of “scholar”.

The problem (I do not claim the fallacy of understanding all that the critic means based only on these points you quote, but simply answer what you present of his) at the outset is that he must show with good evidence that the issues are more "clear-cut" than the fundamentalist is asserting, yet in so doing he must prove far greater concepts than his primary one. It brings on the circuitous debate of Biblical interpretation which has persisted for years.

He notes on page 114 of the particular book I cite that he is an ex-fundamentalist. He grew up in the “Bible Belt” and attended a Bible college to the M.A. level. As a fundamentalist he considered “… scholarship was valid and necessary but true scholarship in no way conflicted with the truth of the Bible, while conversely, scholarship which did conflict was ultimately only ‘science falsely so-called”.

Grabbe concludes that “… despite noises to the contrary – fundamentalism is incompatible with scholarship.”

Many ex-atheists would say similar things about evolutionists and scholarship. It's too rhetorical to be employed as useful dialogue.

1) Glenn R Morton. Glenn is an ex-fundamentalist who is also a geologist. He is a very conservative Christian. He is very down on fundamentalism – particularly its ability to teach things that are not correct (with respect to geology), and go very silent when challenged on these things.

I imagine fundamentalists are silent when challenged on these things if one turns a deaf ear.

One only has to do a little reading to find responses to virtually every kind of problem, whether accepted or not. "Silent" on the issues is an evolutionist colloquialism for "doesn't say what we think is correct". There is no absence of responses.

Here is my take on the question of scholarship. As was suggested, methods used to discredit literalist Bible scholars are regressive and the issues they raise are more complicated than the ones they attempt to solve. Why then do people strive to discredit scholarship? It is nothing new mind you. The reality is that if scholarship is discredited, no one will listen. One can win a debate by forfeit. Wouldn't that be nice? That IMO is a far greater goal of the critic than that one argument here or there be discredited. It is ostensibly a simpler task to discredit full scholarship, but only for those who do not dig. For those who listen to rhetoric, it works like a charm.