Genetic Fallacies and other Misdemeanors...
Well, thanks to Alan, the discussion of evolution really took off. Another one is going on in the pages of the campus newspaper (where it began). It's kind of fun, for now. But I find I am in a strange mood-enjoying the Christmas spirit with my family (hearing your kids sing "We Three Kings" as you drive along is one of the simple pleasures of life) and yet feeling the loss of my parents everyday. But that is another entry....
A few observations for those interested in the science/religion thing:
*Go back and read my original response to the prof's letter on campus. I was not trying to disprove the theory of evolution, merely responding to his assertions. Thus, I committed no logical fallacy (genetic or otherwise). My points were (and still are) 1. Science can, in fact, lead you to a belief in God-I listed several examples of famous people have demonstrated just that. 2. You simply cannot rely on so called "scientific facts" all of the time. Many famous evidences of evolution have been shot down over the years. Theories and models constantly change with better instrumentation and thorough research. In many ways, science is relative truth, not absolute (and therefore, some would argue, not truth at all).
*What is a Phd anyway? It stands for a doctorate in philosophy. In the early days of higher education, science was part of the philosophy department. And what does the word "philosphy" mean? What better source for that definition than Plato, who basically defined it as the pursuit of truth. And if it were true that there is a God, even the one described in the Bible, why could not philosophy (including science) help you find out?
*If the Bible is not true, merely ancient stories and myth mixed with good teachings, etc, then I have a question. Why is Genesis so close to what science seems to demonstrate in the fossil record? Consider this:
As was pointed out in some recent comments, every religion and culture has a creation myth. Obviously, they are just that-myth. The Hindu picture of the Earth on a giant turtle in space, the Native American stories of "brother Salmon" needing a river,etc. But in Genesis, the progression of life begins with simple, aquatic forms and progresses to more complex terrestrial forms, climaxing with human beings, just like the fossil record seems to show (granted, birds are out of sequence in the Genesis account, but lately, paleontologists are telling us they are just glorified dinosaurs i.e. reptiles). Now if Genesis is just another myth, how is this possible?
*And now, the Rob Gunn Theory of Evolution/Creation (appluase please):
If Moses did indeed pen Genesis, and God worked with with E=mc2, DNA, mutation, natural selection, etc. to create the Earth and life, how could he possibley explain that to Moses? Or, if he did reveal the complex nature of all this to Moses, how could Moses communicate it to the people wandering in the desert? Is not the essential story that : A. God did it B. He did it over time in a progression C. The pinnacle of it all is man D It is amazing, no matter how you look at it.
Further, the ancient people could understand days, lights, etc. , not millions of years, parsecs, etc. The Bible was written to communicate to people thousands of years ago, not to 21st Century minds.( Which also, explains why it uses terms like "four-footed" to describe insects -we even say "get on all fours" when dad gets on the floor to play with his kids, not implying he has more than two actual feet. It's merely an expression. Also, bats are just flying animals, which if you notice, are at the end of the list of birds in Deut. and Lev., not included in the middle. There may also be punctuation issues in the ancient Hebrew)
Well, now that I have explained everything to everyone's satisfaction, it is time to go home. And no matter where you stand on all of this, may I wish you a....
Merry Chirstmas!
A few observations for those interested in the science/religion thing:
*Go back and read my original response to the prof's letter on campus. I was not trying to disprove the theory of evolution, merely responding to his assertions. Thus, I committed no logical fallacy (genetic or otherwise). My points were (and still are) 1. Science can, in fact, lead you to a belief in God-I listed several examples of famous people have demonstrated just that. 2. You simply cannot rely on so called "scientific facts" all of the time. Many famous evidences of evolution have been shot down over the years. Theories and models constantly change with better instrumentation and thorough research. In many ways, science is relative truth, not absolute (and therefore, some would argue, not truth at all).
*What is a Phd anyway? It stands for a doctorate in philosophy. In the early days of higher education, science was part of the philosophy department. And what does the word "philosphy" mean? What better source for that definition than Plato, who basically defined it as the pursuit of truth. And if it were true that there is a God, even the one described in the Bible, why could not philosophy (including science) help you find out?
*If the Bible is not true, merely ancient stories and myth mixed with good teachings, etc, then I have a question. Why is Genesis so close to what science seems to demonstrate in the fossil record? Consider this:
As was pointed out in some recent comments, every religion and culture has a creation myth. Obviously, they are just that-myth. The Hindu picture of the Earth on a giant turtle in space, the Native American stories of "brother Salmon" needing a river,etc. But in Genesis, the progression of life begins with simple, aquatic forms and progresses to more complex terrestrial forms, climaxing with human beings, just like the fossil record seems to show (granted, birds are out of sequence in the Genesis account, but lately, paleontologists are telling us they are just glorified dinosaurs i.e. reptiles). Now if Genesis is just another myth, how is this possible?
*And now, the Rob Gunn Theory of Evolution/Creation (appluase please):
If Moses did indeed pen Genesis, and God worked with with E=mc2, DNA, mutation, natural selection, etc. to create the Earth and life, how could he possibley explain that to Moses? Or, if he did reveal the complex nature of all this to Moses, how could Moses communicate it to the people wandering in the desert? Is not the essential story that : A. God did it B. He did it over time in a progression C. The pinnacle of it all is man D It is amazing, no matter how you look at it.
Further, the ancient people could understand days, lights, etc. , not millions of years, parsecs, etc. The Bible was written to communicate to people thousands of years ago, not to 21st Century minds.( Which also, explains why it uses terms like "four-footed" to describe insects -we even say "get on all fours" when dad gets on the floor to play with his kids, not implying he has more than two actual feet. It's merely an expression. Also, bats are just flying animals, which if you notice, are at the end of the list of birds in Deut. and Lev., not included in the middle. There may also be punctuation issues in the ancient Hebrew)
Well, now that I have explained everything to everyone's satisfaction, it is time to go home. And no matter where you stand on all of this, may I wish you a....
Merry Chirstmas!
posted by Rob | 2:32 PM
10 Comments:
Merry Christmas to you too Rob!
I think that whoever wrote Genesis their main interest was not communciating the ins and outs of the physical world but rather the person of God and His relationship with His creation.
On the myth question. I don't think the creation account in Genesis is just another myth. I think it's a true myth :). But the genre of the creation account is mythic in my opinion.
I think evolution does contradict Christianity for other reasons however. I don't care so much about the evolution of species over time. That may or may not be the correct theory. I hope science will stick to it's values and deal with the theory scientifically. I wouldn't be surprised at all if they came up with a completely new theory. That's the job of science and not the job of scripture. Athough the more Christian scientists the better!
My problem with evolution is the 'survival of the fittest' aspect. Christianity is about weakness overcoming strength. Jesus on the cross is how God chooses to free the world from Satan's tyrrany. Christians too often submit to the survival of the fittest mentality by co-opting the means of the world to get our message across. And we(me especially) fail terribly at obeying Jesus call to care for the least among us.
Hey There...
I was starting to feel left out and thought I'd throw something out there that is maybe of a side note. Kind of sparked by what Travis suggested about the survival of the fittest.
Let me suggest that survival of the fittest is a principle that extends beyond life and the theory of evolution. What do I mean?
Specifically, nearly every day, I use principles of evolution (i.e. survival of the fittest) in a computer software system I'm developing. Its a technique called "Genetic Programming." Takes too long to discuss, but in very simple terms: I have computer program that breeds other programs using techniques like mutation, crossover, transposition and reproduction, all taken straight from what evolutionary biology teaches and genetics has revealed. The result of this process is to generate programs that solve problems, based upon whatever pressures you place on the population of programs (I know, its all very wild). It very specifically uses the principle of survival of the fittest to apply the pressure. It's really incredibly amazing the breath and depth of the problems this technique solves. I have a DVD that contains a recent discussion of some of the results and I've been staying current with the latest literature from research; I find myself shaking my head in disbelief at what kinds of problems are being tackled.
The technique can be thought of simply, an effecient searching mechanism. It is understood, by some (not entirely by me), why this works, it can be explained. It's not a mystery.
The leading researcher in the field claims that he can now produce, "routine human competitive results" using the technique, and he understands the implication of what he is saying. Others report programs that replicate life-like behavior, spontaneously generating self-replication, exhibiting structures that resemble RNA, punctuated equilibrium in populations and other biological (genetic) features.
In a similar way that Rob finds it interesting the "order" of the Genesis account, I find it interesting that by applying these genetic/evolutionary principles in an entirely different context (i.e. inside a computer), the same sort of structures result.
I accepted before and now my recent move into this aspect of Computer Science has only further strengthened my acceptance that survival of the fittest (among other complexities) is relevant to the progression of life.
Dean
Dean,
My positive opinion towards evolution is not based on biological systems either. It is Big Bang cosmology, stellar evolution, and planetary evolution. Physics provides a compelling framework to understand the world we observe. The relative abundances of the elements, the distribution of stars (color, temperature, size), the composition of the atmosphere, plate tectonics, etc. have excellent theories based on an evolving universe. There are certainly conundrums still existing, but the universe certainly looks old and evolving.
I have little background to judge biological evolution, but evolving systems in these other areas suggest to me that the theory of evolution in biology is probably reasonable.
I do find it interesting that a religion of putting others above oneself rings true and moral. Survival of the Fittest is an evidence of our amoral physical universe. Where does 'true' and 'moral' come from? Are these advanced evolved chemistries within our brains or is there a platonist realm above nature where truth lives? I prefer Yahweh-Jesus to a purely mechanical nature.
Vince,
You sparked a thought in me. Perhaps 'survival of the fittest' is a result of the Fall of creation. The world that scientiest look at is not the world that Yahweh created. They are investigating a fallen world separated from its creator and in need of redemption. How might this create theories and ideas that Christianity seeks to undermine by its very nature? Survival of the fittest may be the reality that Jesus came to subvert.
Dagesh,
There are multiple unscientific lines of thought to adapt evolution to Genesis.
Perhaps all evolving animals were vegetarians (or fruititarians ... seeds and fruits as Genesis implies) until the fall. The fall brings ugly hardship to just surviving. The new earth will right the wrongs and the lion lay with the lamb. In this case, a cosmic shaking took place with the first sin. Jesus death and resurrection is the beginning of the second cosmic shaking which will be completed when he returns. This cosmic alteration sounds a bit like Eastern Orthodox theology.
Another adaptation is presented in an out-of-print book "Genesis Unbound" by John Sailhammer. He suggests that All of the big-bang-animal-evolution creation scenario occurs in Genesis 1:1. The Hebrew phrase "heaven and earth" states explicitly the extremes of the highest heaven and the foundations of the earth but implies everything in between too. This whole universe and planet earth is the survival-of-the-fittest 'useless' creation. Useless implies useless for humans. Then the rest of chapter 1 is a really God's efforts to prepare just a 'land' (not the whole earth) which is made specifically 'useful' or good for humankind. This land is the Promise Land that Moses and the Hebrews are planning to re-enter. In other words, Moses is writing a creation story that justifies God preparing a specific promise land for the Sons of God. Moses is saying "We were kicked out of the land to the east and now we are reentering the land from the east." The second chapter of Genesis is an extension of the first but is referring to a Garden within the Land. The Useful-Good Promised Land was organized with seas, birds, fruit trees, and a special garden where man and God could meet. Moses and the Hebrews reenter a shadow of the real promised land and the prophets see forward to reentry into the real Promised Land. All this suggests parallels to the temple construction ... Court of the Gentiles (rest of the earth), Inner court (Promise Land), Holy of holies (Garden).
Then there is the more scientific parallels made by Hugh Ross in "Fingerprint of God. He relates scientific cosmology and planetology to Genesis 1 verse by verse.
In any case, there are speculations that could put Genesis and evolution together. None that I have heard seem to resolve every jot and tittle. Interesting speculations, but combining science and Genesis still misses the revelations about God and humanity that are more important to the story of Genesis. Science and Genesis may not be reconcilable and may not need to be reconcilable.
Vince
Vince,
Yeah, I don't think that science and Genesis need to be reconciled. Science is merely descriptive. Genesis seeks to shape our thinking and place us into a relationship with God.
dagesh,
But it sure if fun to speculate!
Vince
Rob,
Perhaps I did misunderstand your use of the book Icons of Evolution. Dr. Wells refers to evolution as a "Materialistic Myth", so I had mistakenly assumed that you felt similarly in bringing up the book and specifically working from its content. Even after re-reading your letter, it still reads like you want to say evolution can't be true, if read by a casual audience. The "Rob Gunn" Theory of Evolution helps enlighten your thinking, but is slippery enough to let you work the issue from either side as you see fit. You seem to struggle quite profoundly with this issue. In your latest entry you suggest reading an "island" concept, but immediately disclaim it, I honestly believe you have a lot of internal conflict on this subject. I understand why you can't be more clear, its a psychologically complex issue for Christians, particularly the evangelical mind, and particularly since you have a degree in Biology.
I've noted previously that I come from a strong, sometimes quite passionate, Christian experience, specifically, an evangelical protestant background. Vince might agree, the evangelical mind is conditioned far too much towards a literal, inerrant, interpretation of the Biblical accounts. Beginning with creation, Sodom and Gomorrah, The Flood, Tower of Babel and so on. The evangelical mind is faced with a real problem, at least mine was, when the realization comes that these stories are not written as specific historical accounts (and they are not historical accounts, some are pure myth, some are legendary accounting), a big rug gets pulled out from underneath your belief system. That, in simple terms, is what has happened to me. This, I believe, is the sadness Vince referred to at one point. I can still think and sympathize quite easily in Christian terms.
This is why I keep asking the question, how do I get started? In some way, shape or form, man must be responsible for bringing sin into the world; God can not have created it, or we end up in the dilemma that God caused our sin and therefore man is not responsible and a personal choice is not required for redemption.
Should note that I don't have a problem that faith is involved, in some manner, with respect to an eternal "god"; its a freewill discussion, for another day. I don't expect there to be a video recording of the first sin event, but I also think it is dubious to have it represented in what is clearly a parable narrative. Part of the deconversion process involved realizing there were a tremendous number of other creation myths, involving stories of redemption, i.e. sin. To the ancients, what makes the Hebrew story more compelling than any other. Rob suggests the idea of a correct ordering in Genesis, others would strongly disagree with him. Light of day before sun, plants created before the sun, so, one piece of, somewhat, correct ordering doesn't compel me. I also think the Genesis account had the benefit of actually being finalized into writing much later than most other creation stories, therefore, a lot of the mythological sounding features of the time would have had a chance to be cleansed before the final recordings were placed into writing. Sorry, I'm wandering here, this isn't really the discussion Rob set forth.
On Travis' blog I promised a thought experiment, I have to take back those words. The idea is well formed in my mind, but I'm not sure how well or long it would be on paper. The alternative I have to offer is much simpler, therefore, easier to be criticized.
If we think of one of the essential aspects of human sin, and thinking of the original sin concept, selfishness is a core element, someone might want to say disobedience to be true to the Genesis account, but I think selfishness is holding hands pretty tightly with disobedience. If one thinks in evolutionary terms, selfishness is nothing more than an evolutionary characteristic. I look at my pets and they exhibit selfish behaviors right and left, I don't think of them as sinful, that's just life! That is, partly, why I don't accept the premise, I don't view selfishness as an, when thinking of the universe as a whole, evil characteristic, I view it as amoral.
This is getting too long, at the start of writing this, I had intended to speak to the challenge an evangelical mind faces when confronted with reality and describe how I got here in relation to the ongoing discussion, I kind of wandered around and didn't write anything too cohesive. Perhaps that opportunity will come up in the future. For now, I'll return to lurking, thanks to everyone for their time.
Alan
Alan,
I suggest that the Bible is more historical than you seem to indicate…you write:
”Beginning with creation, Sodom and Gomorrah, The Flood, Tower of Babel and so on. The evangelical mind is faced with a real problem, at least mine was, when the realization comes that these stories are not written as specific historical accounts (and they are not historical accounts, some are pure myth, some are legendary accounting)…”
The stories identified are embedded in a historical narrative of sorts. They sound like a distant hebrew memory passed along through oral traditions, but they do have a ring of history rather than myth or fiction. American indian mythology suggests myth from its style and mythical characters. The early Genesis stories sound like the writer believes the oral traditions to be history of a sort. They characters in the stories are human for the most part. I suspect the stories to approximate real events to some degree. The Tower of Babel may be an exaggeration of the Babylonian Ziggurats and a short hand ‘story’ of human language divergence. The flood appears to be an event-story in nearly every ancient culture (Chinese, Japanese, Egyptian, even some American Indians). It may have been only a regional flood, but it appears that a devastating flood probably did occur and has been a part of human traditional memory. I hold these accounts at arms length and ponder the 'history'.
There are other portions of the Bible that do not have the character of historical narrative. Jonah and Job are the prime examples of clear literary fiction. Too often these obvious fiction writings are assumed to be historical narrative. This said, it would be unnecessarily prejudgment to say the early Genesis stories are mythological. The writer of the oral traditions seems to believe them to be history even if they are not good history and only approximate real events. I hold them at arms length but also hold my judgment.
More interesting, though, are your comments on sin. They raise many questions in my mind. What is sin? Are selfishness and sin equivalent? What is sin as presented by the Genesis story? Is 'original sin' biblical or an invention of Augustine? Is the infant a sinner? What is Paul's view of sin? More importantly, what is Jesus' view of sin?
Rob? How about a straightshot essay. Creationist-vs-evolutionist topic is a heated sideline that should not matter as much as it seems to.
Vince
Rob,
There is no inherent conflict with science & religion, unless we force one to exist.
Science cannot have a concept of God. Saying "God created the world" just puts off (delays) a deeper explanation. "God" is a mere excuse to side-step the questions of origin, etc.
Religion does and should build faith in God, but it should never pick a fight with science. Evolution is no more an attack on God than meteorology. Both are sciences of change over time and probability. In both sciences we understand preconditions that produce change. In neither science can we predict change with precision.
Why do religionists ignore the claims of the meteorologist that barometer readings predict rain or wind? Did air pressure changes create the weather or did God? The reality is that religious and scientific questions of origin have no relevance to one another.
(I am the bats & insects guy). If God explains to Moses claims about nature that are overly simplistic, then I think scientists have a right to ignore the Bible as a sourcebook about nature. I am not suggesting that religionists should ignore the book. In fact, I would suggest that one can be both a scientist (a hard one) and a religionist. I know many good scientists who are religionists.
Yes, science has got a lot of things wrong. That is the cost of doing business. I would suggest, however, that religion has not advanced our understanding of nature. One could argue, however, that it has advanced our morality. Fine. Science has advanced technical civilization; religion & philosophy have advanced moral civilization. To me, religion & science are like the X & Y axes of a Cartesian plane. They are orthogonal (independent), but both are needed to find our place in this life.
I would say it is OK to have Darwin's book in one hand and the Bible in the other. In both cases, our understanding will evolve. However, I am not likely to consult my pastor for information about bats and insects, but maybe about other things more abstract.
Post a Comment
<< Home