Quit Hating Science

Indeed, it goes against sound and established interpretive principles to read Genesis 1-2 as a science account. Any anyway, how did Adam name all the animals and realize that he was alone and have Eve made for him in one day? Day 6 must have been really really busy.

Also, if any things to quote Exodus or Psalms or any other “in six days God created” reference, remember that Genesis formed the unifying Jewish cultural mythology (much like Greek and Roman myths serve us). References to it are not to be taken as literal statements in any Hebrew writings.

I’m not intending to lump all theology together. My example of amillennialism was to show that even minor theological views can have a major affect. A view on creation may not have an impact on everyone. I agree, the issue of Christ’s divinity is much more important, but this issue and a person’s viewpoint on it can influence the way they read the rest of the Bible.

I beleive what Dan would/will tell you is that you can tell Genesis is myth because you can tell its genre. Thus we know what parts of the Bible are “true” because we can (with literary criticism) tell the genre of the books.

Hm, I always like to hear different views. My Bible training comes from a grammatical-historical hermeneutical background which would also see genre as crucial in interpreting and understanding the Bible. The difference is this literary criticism disagrees with your interpretations of the genre of some of those books. Plus my Jewish professor who can teach the Old Testament from the original language would disagree with much of that interpretation and he understands Jewish literary devices better than I ever will.

I’m sure you can come up with evidence of your own to counter-argue all that. There are intelligent people on both sides of lasting arguments. Like I’ve said before, we’re not going to convince each other. The only reason I’m disagreeing further is because I think it needs to be pointed out for other readers that the mythic interpretation isn’t as “obvious” as it seems to be stated here.

Also, I feel you haven’t answered my question. When does the Bible stop becoming mythic stories in your view? Why is Exodus not myth and Genesis is, especially when Genesis-Deuteronomy is considered one book in Jewish tradition? I’ve met people who say any parts that have miracles are mythic, but you’ve included Exodus, Deuteronomy and the Gospels as true so that’s apparently not where you’re coming from.

I think that non-believers can take both the Bible and Christianity a lot more seriously when we acknowledge the fact that not everything is a historical play-by-play of how God chooses to act in the world. Trying to, as Justin said, “avoid the obvious” and explain our way around it just makes us look stupid and the Bible irrelevant.

I agree that we can get into shady territory when asking when the Bible stops being mythical and becomes literal. But I think it’s important to remember to focus on what the Bible teaches us about God and the story He is writing regardless- essentially the importance shouldn’t be placed on whether what we are reading is literal or mythical, but rather on what God is trying to tell us about His character and His mission. The literal vs. mythical debate becomes less important when we do this. As Christians, we can agree that every word of Scripture, whether mythical or literal, it the very Word of God and that we must submit to its authority. That should be our focus either way.

@Travis
I think there may be a slight difference between what you and I might call science. While science is to be solely concerned with the physical, the proposition of a theory that is not as yet empirically supported is standard practice. When chemistry reached the point that atomic fission was suggested, many thought it was crazy, impossible, or unscientific. (This also occurred with gravity, heliocentric solar system theories, etc.) Science in its purest form ignores suggestions of impossibility and attempts to test all theories. In a university biology class, the professor will tell you that your job is not to prove anything, but rather to disprove.
With this in mind, the fact that there is as yet no empirical evidence for macro-evolution does not make it unscientific. In the early 20th century, there was no empirical evidence that a nuclear bomb would work, only theory. This theory was later proven to be true, after empirical evidence regarding other phenomena led researchers to propose the possibility. The same is true of macroevolution. Science has established as fact the process of microevolution, and if one accepts a long enough timeline, it is logical to believe that species COULD change enough so as not to be able to interbreed (thus satisfying the current scientific definition of differing species.) The assumption that this is fact and can be the only explanation for the origin of life is not scientific. However, the assumption that it is a plausible (though as of yet unsupported) theory of origins is not unscientific at all.

@Travis:

If I misconstrued something, I apologize, though I maintain that there’s an inconsistency in your rejecting something on a scientific basis while yet saying it is not science. If it were not science, you would not need to reject it on that basis, according to your own very strict definition. You say that micro-evolution is not proof for macro-e, which is a scientific evaluation. Exactly my point!

Furthermore, by your conception of science, that scientists have theorized elements which have not yet been physically discovered is also “not science” because not empirically verified. This just doesn’t work! By your conception, the possibility of theory and testing, which are slow processes, cease to exist. That was my main point to you, and you’ve skipped lightly over it.

And you did in fact indicate that you accepted that evidence for macro-evolution COULD be found or be discovered, by your “Quite true” statement in response to me (look again). If that is not what you meant, then you misspoke. I did not misunderstand. Your “Quite true” and what followed it were inconsistent. Perhaps I should have just asked you if you meant to contradict yourself, but as the rhetorical move was one of belittling a set of ideas rather than engagement with the topic, I thought it appropriate to respond as devil’s advocate.

In fact, I never claimed you believe in, think likely, nor even sneeze a maybe at macro-evolution, nor that you accept micro-e as evidence for it. I only said that if you acknowledge that evidence for such could possibly still be found because definitive empirical evidence for the contrary has not been found, it indicates that if such evidence were found you would have to consider it and, therefore, that macro-e is a scientific theory wherein empirical evidence does matter — i.e., it is science — all of which contradicts your statement that it should be relegated to the status of quack religion and the implied suggestion that this is how to deal with it. Your bit about that was not logical, at least, and is exactly the type of rhetoric that helps no one IMO.

Ironically, your definition of science is too much like what I imagine Richard Dawkins’ definition is, which is why I would argue for a different definition, one that tried less to pigeonhole science into the realm of the empirical, which seems and often pretends to carry with it the weight of undeniable fact (the same thing happens in religion, of course). Of course science deals with the verifiable, but that does not mean that every question of science is immediately verifiable, nor that it should be. That’s nonsense. It flies in the face of the whole history of scientific discovery, a slow process.

And I understand your desire to put science in a place where it can’t speculate, and thus Dawkins can’t spout his blah blah blah, but by basing your argument only on wanting to silence one person and those who agree with him, you’re not addressing the issue and you’re not being intellectually honest, in my estimation. You are setting a precedent that someone might want to use to silence you but that you would not appreciate.

I already hinted at and suggest a qualified definition of science. Instead of only and always empirical, which is an accurate definition to a point but is not really an accurate description of the scientific process, it should be widely known that scientists make imaginative leaps, that such leaps are often part of the theoretical process, and that there is a corresponding measure of uncertainty to all scientific endeavor. They’re trying to imagine a solution that works, they imagine one that seems to, based on their testing, and so it gets accepted as working theory despite the fact that it may not be wholly true, or not tested from every angle and thus in need of revision.

This happens all the time in life and in science, neither of which are static monoliths but ongoing processes of growth. For instance, brilliant scientists came up with conceptions of the solar system that explained their questions at the time but that were not quite accurate, that have been rejected and revised, but we still respect their efforts at getting us where we are now. We acknowledge their usefulness for a time and their ultimate good.

What I am saying is that science should be more honest, as should religion, and religion should be more forgiving of science’s methodical, plodding motion. Unfortunately, we live in a society where if you don’t sound 100% certain and if you haven’t all the answers (or at least you sound like you don’t) then you’re not taken seriously and you don’t make the headlines. Once you do make the headlines, you’re either preaching to the choir or pissing off the people who disagree with you, and all forms of discourse are poisoned because of it.

I’m saying that science is a lot more uncertain, like faith is often thought to be, than scientists would like to admit, and faith is a lot more scientific and reasonable and a part of science than they would like to admit. A modest claim, I think, and not unsupported by fact. In contrast to my honest estimation of how things stand, your definition only strengthens the root problem, which I already alluded to. If it’s a matter of choosing what definition to use and we’re free to do so, I think yours only makes matters worse. It does nothing to change the game, which is what is needed.

Either way, it gets down to trusting things you cannot be absolutely sure of. The strongest faith has a shadow of doubt in it until the test is over and has proven it. If there was no reason to doubt there would be no need to have faith.

Only scientific laws are unchanging, unlike theories that develop, and there are few laws in comparison with the number of working theories. I’ve already said that lumping macro-e into that group is the current problem. It has been smuggled into the inner sanctum before it proved itself worthy. But that does not mean you can get it back out by saying it is not science, nor that you can honestly say it is not true on the basis of it having been smuggled. If you smuggle a bomb onto a plane it does not cease to be a bomb merely by your claiming it is a feather nor by your calling out that it should not be there, yet that is essentially what you are trying to do. Instead, it must be dealt with directly, it must be engaged. In scientific terms, if it cannot be proven wrong outright, then it must be revised.

I am not a scientist. I cannot do that work myself, but I can encourage those who may want to and I can imagine how things could be different than they are, especially in the way we talk about these issues.

Lastly, the “fine I just won’t play anymore” in your last post leaves me very disappointed. It’s the equivalent of giving up because something isn’t going your way. I understand what you’re saying — I just don’t agree in certain ways and don’t think that your thoughts on the matter are always consistent, but no need to “despair”, to claim that I don’t understand you, when in fact you seem to have tried very little to understand my main points, and if you had you would have seen that I did not misunderstand and was only trying to redirect your rhetoric into a more beneficial channel.

By questioning the very basis of conversation you give yourself a high-sounding excuse not to try to understand another person’s words while serving that person an insult in disguise. These are your methods of communication, and I’m apparently to blame?

@Travis

As I said, I totally understood you, I just disagree. I do so on the basis of how science actually works, your eventual definition of which is stilted and incomplete and the giving of which revealed why you contradict yourself. It serves the purpose of your current rhetorical needs and sounds cool as a philosophical exercise disconnected from the real world (very Platonic in that way, as opposed to Aristotle, who argued for observation of the real world and thus helped create science as we know it). It does not in fact accurately describe the thing in question, though it is the typical definition you’ll hear on the street. By not accurately describing science, it is misleading. Thus your conclusion, with which I also disagree. But I totally understand you!

Last time: Science tends to use the THEORY that answers the most questions, and right now that theory as concerns the origin of species is often referred to as macroevolution. It is held as the predominant WORKING THEORY because most scientists think it best explains the observable phenomena. It DOES come out of empirical evidence and IS supported by evidence (i.e., FACTS), just not definitively so, and thus it could still be proven either wrong or right, or partially right and in need of revision. It is not LAW, and so it is not EVER to be taken as FACT, only as an explanation for CERTAIN FACTS.

We could say the same things about relativity theory, quantum theory, etc., but that does not mean that they deserve to be lumped together with quack religions unless you believe the theory to be totally bogus. By saying you reject it on a scientific basis, you indicated you do not see it as bogus (i.e., a sham) but as not scientifically proven to the point where you will accept it, thus proving by your own words that it belongs in the realm of scientific thought.

You are right, I say, in not wanting to say that macroevolution MUST be true (as opposed to Dawkins, who would perhaps say it must be true), but you are equally wrong to say that it BELONGS categorically with scientology, which I think we both agree is not properly science, as it is well-known that it was conceived by a writer of fictions who thought he’d give creating a religion a try. Its basis is not the observation of phenomena resulting in an explanatory hypothesis to be subsequently tested, and is thus not science.

I say it is the elevation of the theory to a religion that is not being tested as it should that is the problem. This is the reason why it does not get questioned to the point of its being revised and/or thrown out more quickly. Stiff-necked religionists have as much to do with that slowness, IMO, as anyone, as such have helped create an environment where free investigation of ideas is highly frowned upon. Again, nothing new here. I nevertheless have some confidence that this theory will in fact undergo significant revision, if not replacement, within our lifetime. We’re just waiting for a generation to die off, sometimes the only way things ever change.

How many times do I have to say the same things? Another time round the merry-go-round? No, no, that’s all right. I’m patient, but…

Macroevolution is by nature beyond the domain of science. Science deals with what can be observed in the present.

History deals with what can be extrapolated in the past, and the macroevolutionary arguments fail the bar of historical evidence pretty epically.