The Mud-Man & His Rib-Woman

[StuartJ]

Yahweh Elohim (Kurios Theos/Lord God) in contradiction of Genesis 1, created a human male from mud, as the first living creature (not the last).

After failing to find a suitable good helper for the mud-man by creating animals from mud, the not-so-omniscient mythological Jewish deity then created the planet's first human female from one of the mud-man's ribs.

Can this be put up against evolutionary science?

[bluethread]

[Replying to post 35 by bluethread]

Then if it's not the purpose of the text, nor verifiable, there's little rational reason to assume it actually occurred. In other words, why do you (assuming you do) believe a god created man from the dirt if that wasn't the intent of the story and is, as you say, unverifiable?

Regarding that in particular, evolutionary theory says pretty much the same thing, just over a long period of time as the result of matter and motion, without a deity.

[brunumb]

[Replying to post 33 by William]

Metaphysics is outside the ability of scientific scrutiny.

That's a convenient way of distancing absurd and fanciful ideas from examination and verification. The only thing outside the ability of scientific scrutiny is the non-existent.

[Inigo Montoya]

[Replying to post 35 by bluethread]

Then if it's not the purpose of the text, nor verifiable, there's little rational reason to assume it actually occurred. In other words, why do you (assuming you do) believe a god created man from the dirt if that wasn't the intent of the story and is, as you say, unverifiable?

Regarding that in particular, evolutionary theory says pretty much the same thing, just over a long period of time as the result of matter and motion, without a deity.

Ok. Even if I accept evolution says, in a really generous round about way, that man came ultimately from matter (we'll leave out rib-woman) but without a deity, you have personally inserted a deity into the explanation.

I'm asking why.

[William]

[Replying to post 42 by brunumb]

Metaphysics is outside the ability of scientific scrutiny.

That's a convenient way of distancing absurd and fanciful ideas from examination and verification.

That's the reality of it. Also when it comes to what are absurd and fanciful ideas, these are rendered so by individual opinion based on preferred position.

The only thing outside the ability of scientific scrutiny is the non-existent.

More like the non-known to exist. The way you expressed it, is oxymoron. Things exist.

[bluethread]

Ok. Even if I accept evolution says, in a really generous round about way, that man came ultimately from matter (we'll leave out rib-woman) but without a deity, you have personally inserted a deity into the explanation.

I'm asking why.

No, I have not. The OP is asking for a comparison. Genesis recognizes a deity as the cause in the same way that Scientism recognizes matter and motion as the cause. Both are explanations in the absence of sufficient information. Scientism simply presumes that perpetual motion over a long period of time will eventually result in a complicated biological system. This is the infinite monkey theorem. The problem I find with this theorem is that it provides no guidance with regard to morality, values or consciousness. Theism, real or imagined, provides a basis for covenant morality, contractual values and identity consciousness. The first chapters of Genesis explain the development of these consepts in a mythopoetic format. In case you have not been been made aware of the mythopoetic format, it speaks to principle, without concern for whether the details of the account can be verified or not.

[bluethread]

The only thing outside the ability of scientific scrutiny is the non-existent.

Are you saying that morality, values and consciousness are non-existent? How about history and law? Is my assertion that I ate a burrito yesterday non-existent? Today there is one less burrito in the refrigerator than thee was yesterday, or so I claim. Where is the science in that?

[Inigo Montoya]

[Replying to post 45 by bluethread]


Do you believe a god made the first man from dirt? And the first woman from the rib of that man?

[DrNoGods]

[Replying to post 45 by bluethread]

Scientism simply presumes that perpetual motion over a long period of time will eventually result in a complicated biological system.

Here is a more appropriate wording of that sentence:

The theory of evolution asserts that random mutations combined with natural selection, over a long period of time, will eventually result in a complicated biological system.

Since we do have abundant evidence that this process has indeed happened, and is happening presently, the scientific method (not "scientism") now calls this process a formal theory. There is no presumption involved ... the original hypothesis has been validated by observation.

[bluethread]

[Replying to post 45 by bluethread]

Scientism simply presumes that perpetual motion over a long period of time will eventually result in a complicated biological system.

Here is a more appropriate wording of that sentence:

The theory of evolution asserts that random mutations combined with natural selection, over a long period of time, will eventually result in a complicated biological system.

Since we do have abundant evidence that this process has indeed happened, and is happening presently, the scientific method (not "scientism") now calls this process a formal theory. There is no presumption involved ... the original hypothesis has been validated by observation.

Not in a controlled environment. Natural selection can not occur in a controlled environment. Sure, certain things can be tested using the scientific method, but the conclusion requires the combination of some scientific testing, some observation and some speculation. One must also ask what caused natural selection? Is it not the environment and other life forms? Then what caused the environment and other life forms, but random selection? So, even though throwing in random mutations and natural selection makes the theory sound more plausible, it still comes down to matter and motion over a long period of time, the monkey theorem. Without a creator, one is left with nothing more than a meaningless infinite regression. If you are ok with that, have at it. I just think that life is more than that.

[DrNoGods]

[Replying to post 49 by bluethread]

Is it not the environment and other life forms? Then what caused the environment and other life forms, but random selection?

Evolution only addresses the mechanism by which life diversified after it appeared via some means to begin with. It makes no claims about, or has any dependence on, HOW that first life arose. And it has virtually nothing to do with how the environment itself (assuming you are referring to planet earth ... the oceans, land masses, weather, etc.) came about.

And the question "what caused natural selection" is confusing because it is not something that is "caused." It is simply the process by which beneficial mutations can eventually become fixed in a population because they provide improvements in the ability to survive and reproduce.

Without a creator, one is left with nothing more than a meaningless infinite regression.

We know a great deal about how and when the earth came in existence (4.6 billion years ago), but we don't know the mechanism, yet, for how the first life forms arose. But there is no infinite regression as far as evolution is concerned because it doesn't care how that happened, only that it did. So if you walk backwards in time you can stop at the first population of organisms that did represent life as far as evolution is concerned. Anything before that, as well as the mechanism for how that life form arose, are not at all relevant to the theory of evolution as it only applies once there is a population of life forms to operate on. It has a definite starting point.