h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

Just spotted this on a re-reading.

Apparently the "6 days or 7 days" question has been an issue amongst Rabbis (is that the plural?) for thousands of years! The 6 day camp take the simplistic approach; the 7 day camp assert that since God rested "on the seventh day" and it does not say "from the beginning of the seventh day" or "all the seventh day" then some of the seventh day was spent not resting.

Can anyone out there who can read Hebrew comment on just what the "original" version says?

Yeah, perhaps that post was a little harsh after reading it over, sorry it was unintended. I take ID to mean the "evidences" that point towards a designer. What you describe sounds more like the "Anthropic Principle" to me.

I honestly think I'd be able to have a better conversation with someone who believes in ID rather than a beligerant old-school creationist, they just don't have the capacity for rational discussion.

So then, what lead you to think that we are designed? And why do you think that evolution has an end, a purpose?



Ste

No problem.

Let me first preface any response by saying I think science and history can be rather volitile when combined with faith, so I generally talk about them as seperate entities even when they seem to cross together. For thinking people such as myself who believe, it's sometimes very hard to endure statements which say something along the lines of "the fossil record tends to support the theory of evolution, therefore God does not exist." So in the end, rather than defend science to the utmost and alienate my own sense of belief or defend religion to that end and feel like a loony, I tend to separate the two.

Having said that, I don't want to present evidence that we are designed, even if I thought there might be. Let's just say that it's a matter of faith, even without evidence. Though I could never prove myself right, I don't think, with an moderately open mind and a willingness to listen, that you could ever really prove me wrong, could you?

As for evolution having a purpose... I believe that we are the end result of God's plan. You may disagree with me on that point, but as I said before, it's what I believe. Besides, if we aren't "done" evolving, what would we turn into?

*Shudders at the thought of decendants turning into gooey, sci-fi thingies*

-Eagle 1

The Biblical Cain and Abel story says that Cain killed Abel; Cain himself was not killed - in fact he was given some sort of mark to protect him from being killed. Several things indicate that there were many more people around than just Cain, Adam, and Eve at this point and at this time in the story. Where did they come from?

There are many theories about this, ranging from unmentioned siblings or other relatives to the Biblical assertion that people lived much, much, longer then. Example - if Noah was 924 years old (as asserted) and if the average age for a generation (elapsed time from birth of parent to birth of child) was 22 years, then 42 (yes - it's 42 again) generations would be alive at the same time. If each generation produced just four offspring, and all survived, there would be 2+4+8+16+ ... +4,398,046,511,104 (2 to the power 42) people alive, which I make considerably more than the present population of the earth!

Another problem is if Adam and Eve were literally the first two (and at that time the only two) humans, then the next generation could only reproduce incestuously, and we are all descended from incestuous beginnings!

One approach to this problem suggests that Adam and Eve were the ancestors of only the Jews (or perhaps the Jews and the other Semites), and that there were other "proto families" for other races. However the "incest" argument would still apply to each race.

Another approach is that Adam and Eve were named individuals who are used in the Bible as examples of, or to typify, a group of people.

There is no way to decide the issue. It comes down to what each individual chooses to believe, accept, and reject.

'it's sometimes very hard to endure statements which say something along the lines of "the fossil record tends to support the theory of evolution, therefore God does not exist."'

Blimey, that isn't even close to any sort of logic. I don't think anyone who has seriously thought about the fossil record would agree with that. I certainly don't.

"...rather than defend science to the utmost and alienate my own sense of belief or defend religion to that end and feel like a loony, I tend to separate the two."

Fair enough, but you have merged the two with respects to your beliefs that mankind is a result of divinley guided evolution...

Saying that evolution has a purpose is like saying gravity has a purpose, or that relativity has a purpose, it doesn't really make sense it the context of the theory. You only single evolution out for special treatment because the ramifications of the theory conflict with your faith. Evolution is an ongoing process, there is no evidence that it has "ended", in fact we see living things in the process of evolution all the time. The only reason mankind is sheilded somewhat from natural selection is that we have medicine and technology, but we are still evolving (see the resistance to AIDS of many prostitutes in Nairobi, Kenya). If civilisation collapses (nods to Mr. Bush) we would be prone to the harsh realities of 'life in the wild' once more and who knows what we would evolve towards.

You freely admit that it is a matter of faith, which leads me to believe that you are not in fact a creationist. That lot usually try to defend and validate their faith using scientific and quasi-scientific 'evidence'. You on the other hand seem to have more sense than to use one belief-system to verify another.



Ste

According to many experts the first chapter of Genesis is a late interpolation to a much older myth/history that is probably Mesopotamian in origin. (Abraham originally emigrated from there along the fertile crescent to Palestine.) An archaeologist/historian called David Rohl reckons he's pinpointed the original location of Eden near the headwaters of the Tigris and Euphrates rivers. He also reckons that the cities founded by Enoch and named for himself and his son Arad are the Mesopotamian cities of Uruk and Eridu. The Mesopatamian king lists also give extremely long reigns of several centuries to their mythological early kings, and of course the correspondence between the Noah story and the epic of Gilgamesh are well attested. These myths were probably essential to the separate cultural identity of the Jews in Egypt, along with the seven day week (Babylonian in origin) that contrasted with the Egyptian week (ten days, I think).

Intelligent design: If one allots a scientific time span to the existence of life on earth the necessity for design disappears. The belief that humans represent the ultimate in evolutionary potential is IMO the last refuge of the anti-Copernicans in the modern world.
(Unfortunately I don't expect to be around long enough to prove them wrong.) Try reading "Darwin's Dangerous Idea" by Daniel Dennett for the best exposition of the logical possibilities of design by small random increments.

Noggin

I'm sort of with Eagle there, Ste, although I don't go as far as thinking that humans are the end product of evolution (rather egotistically anthropomorphic for me). For me, God exists. It just looks a lot different than most people who profess belief would think it does. I'm more in line with (and the only reason I use this method to describe it is that most people get it) The Force. As in there is something out there that is a conciousness greater than the sum of its parts. "God' is just shorthand.

As far as the whole "we're decended from incest" argument, might I point out that in most of the wisdom lit (read, non-canonical), Adam has a wife before Eve, named Lilith. Lilith refuses to accept Adam's authority over her, insisting that they are equal, and leaves the garden. Later, it says that there are two strands of children, so somewhere out there, Lilith must have found herself someone!

Maybe relativity does have a purpose.

But to jump back a moment, you make a good point about singling out evolution. However, I'd say that the issue of evolution, as much as hard-core creationists can be seen as forcing their faith on others, is more of a reactionary thing for some.

Depending on where you live (and in the US it can make a HUGE difference), sometimes it can feel like Christians in positions of power are forcing their faith on others. But in other places, it can feel like just the opposite. It was stated to me by a peer in college three years ago that people should be more open-minded and accepting, and to that end everyone should give up their faith in God (in two sentences, but you get the idea).

It's hard not to be defensive in those situations, especially when you feel rather upset about it. Sometimes creationism is a knee-jerk reaction, and I know that I appreciate a little patience and tolerance for my ideas, I'm sure other Christians would as well.

I've gone a bit off topic, maybe, but I did want to get that out there.

-Eagle 1

Eagle, what amazes me is that when I sit in a room with 14 other first-year grad students, not one of them can talk intelligently about the role of religion in history. The nuances implicit in Marx's "religion is the optiate of the masses" escapes them as surely as it escaped Stalin. They don't know who the Huegenots are, and don't know the Puritans went to Holland first.

Now, onto a more topical question: the Eve theory. has it been discounted or held up? the last I heard, everyone was sort of ambivalent about it.

"But Noggin, the bible that I have in my hand is the exact literal word of God, it says right here. Therefore your theories on the origins of genesis are wrong." (We don't have any fundies in the house so I thought I'd chip in for the little dears).

"Intelligent design: If one allots a scientific time span to the existence of life on earth the necessity for design disappears. The belief that humans represent the ultimate in evolutionary potential is IMO the last refuge of the anti-Copernicans in the modern world."
Excellent, I agree completely


Montana: I have no issue with if one believes in God or not, you simply say "God exists" and that is more than enough for me and you. But the issue of intelligent design and creationism is more than just about faith or the existance of God, it's about the crossover between science and religion and the ensuing mess.


Eagle 1: "...evolution ...is more of a reactionary thing for some."
Yes, I agree. Creationism is defined by its opposition to evolution, it is born out of a percieved threat to their faith. Incidentally, a creationist's faith cannot be all that strong if they feel threatened by a scientific theory .

"It was stated to me by a peer in college three years ago that people should be more open-minded and accepting, and to that end everyone should give up their faith in God"
That's contradictory nonsense, that is.

I have endless tolerance for your views Eagle, especially after dealing with some of the more, um, 'unyielding' Christian fundamentalists that sometimes breeze through this site.

Ste

lol, well thanks for the compliment.

Sometimes I feel like I need to step up as a Christian and make a simple statement that I wish more of us made... We may not agree about God or the universe, and we may see different consequences for not seeing our way of things. But that doesn't mean that we should disrespect or dislike each other. On the contrary, we should try to be especially nice as that means we can get along, no matter how different we are. Indeed, as a follower of Christ, I believe he wants noithing less.

Ah, well. If all else fails, maybe I can be in a different minority... that of an American who's seen as decent and not egotistical.

-Eagle 1

So, Ste, what you're objecting to is not necessarily the belief, but the insistence that science has to fall into that scope?

Okay, but then you can't hold science up and say that religious belief (i.e., creationism) has to fall into science's mold, either.

One way or the other, dear. Can they co-exist or not?

(Now, admittedly, more creationists insist that science conform than evolutionists insist that creationism conform, but still.)

I don't give two hoots what people believe in, well I do, but they can believe what they like, makes no difference to me. I just think that when one belief-system (religion, in this case specifically creationism) feels the need to square up to, abuse and be validated by another belief-system (science) all at once then you're going to end up with exactly the sort contradictory hopeless mess you see with creationists.

Don't forget that creationism claims to be a scientific theory that is "competing" with evolution. It is nowhere near science, it is a politically-motivated religious fundamentalist movement who try and walk and talk like science to gain credibility.

There's that and the fact that I'm a biologist. So when I see outright lies about evolution being peddled about as "scientific proof" of creationism (a basic logical mistake anyway) I feel obliged to politely correct the error of their ways. EVERY creationist argument is based in misunderstanding of science (either wilful or honest mistake).

"...but then you can't hold science up and say that religious belief (i.e., creationism) has to fall into science's mold, either."
Why should it have to fall into science? Could you clarify this for me .

Science and religion are in no way mutually exclusive. See this entry written by an Anglican priest, which I think sums up a lot quite well: A699573



Ste

I think the rub comes with that brand of creationism that insists that creationism is scientific, and tries to remake science to conform with itself. This has to be resisted with every means at the scientists/rationalists disposal as an attempt to suppress ideas and their free exchange and critical examination.

Noggin

I don't think much of an organisation that goes out of it's way to attempt to discredit evolutionary biology on the premise that the central tenet of their faith can be proven scientifically and the other side's can't.
It makes my brain hurt.
Interestingly one of Catholicism's greatest schisms appeared from within. William of Ockham (Ockham is a small village in Surrey) was responsible for reviving the notion of nominalism, otherwise known as Ockam's Razor, or parsimony. He tried to apply it to the bible to remove the magic, and produce a matter of fact approach that could be used in daily worship. He was a Franciscan scholastic philosopher, and later attracted the ire of the Pope for his ideas.
Had that same pope managed to predict the effectiveness of parsimony as a scientific tool, he would probably have been even more pi**ed off.

Ockham's interesting, but I was thinking more along the lines of Aquinas. Tell me the Summa Theologiae isn't trying desperately to be "scientific"!

And I doubt that many creationists even know *of* Ockham, sadly.

Ste, what I meant was that if you feel the need to correct creationists based on the fact that their science is wrong, then why are you so surprised that they're trying to tell you *your* science is wrong, and it doesn't fit *their* principles? Furthermore, isn't part of the solution to the mess knowing where each side is coming from? (Okay, admittedly, this is rather rational train of thought which some creationists will say is completely influenced by that most logical of beasts, Satan)

(What is it with everyone wanting to be right all the time, anyway?)

What annoys me is when creationists say 'Evolution fundamentally depends on X, Y, Z', and then goes to cast justifiable doubt on X,Y,Z, despite the fact that X,Y,Z are quite irrelevant to evolutionary theory, and yet when that is pointed out, they still go on saying the same thing.

If a non-christian said 'Christian faith depends fundamentally on the moon being made of green cheese, the sun going round the earth, , and all human illnesses being caused by witchcraft', and went on saying the same thing despite it being explained numerous times that they were wrong, I expect it would cause similar annoyance.

Reasonable debate about particular bits of science is another matter, but it requires some kind of factual common ground before the debate can be of any use.

Going back a few posts: yes, I.D. is creationism. In fact, it's just another name for arguing from design, isn't it? In fact, I.D. states that evolution is impossible, with or without guidance. 'Young Earth' creationism is good only for laughter and a guilty feeling of smug superiority in pointing out the obvious fallacies and contradictions (closely followed by irritation when those same arguments are repeated without change). On the other hand, in hearing debates between 'Old Earth' creationists and mainstream science, I often learn a lot about evolutionary theory.

For example, Ste, you mentioned (but comments from anyone are welcome) earlier that you don't feel that humans are currently evolving due to the abundence of medicines etc. But do you think that humans are alone in this? Are any domestic animals evolving? In fact, would you say that all species have periods in their history where their existence is pretty comfortable - plenty of grass/prey/plankton/bamboo/whatever and few or no predators - and periods where survival becomes much harder (e.g. change of environment or climate, introduction of competing species). During comfortable periods, variety builds up in the genome (since there is little or no selection going on), meaning that during harsh periods, selection can occur very rapidly - there is a wide genome to select from, and the harsh period will cause intense selective pressure. This would seem to me to explain why we see some species in the fossil record lasting for millions of years, while others undergo rapid change.

I am of course describing a form of punctuated equilibrium. But my understanding of 'punctuated equilibrium' is different to the 'hopeful monster' understanding I had, say, 12 months ago, so I thought I'd run it past the folks here and see if you have any comments.

On an unrelated point, surely if evolution has a purpose, it's not random, and therefore not evolution? I wholly agree that evolution cannot 'disprove' God, it simply changes him to a creator/observer who 'winds up' the universe and then watches it unfold. Or would any of you say he is involved in every 'random' quantum event?

Gif

I could debate your last statement about I.D., Ste, but I'd rather comment on the idea of winding the Universe up like a watch and letting it run (Ben Franklin's statement here in the US, BTW).

I think that's an interesting idea, to say that God created a Universe with certain laws and behaviors, allowing life on Earth and the Universe to progress naturally. For a Christian, the danger is saying that God still doesn't maintain a daily presence in our lives without influence or guidance. That he just watches everything unfold like some great observer.

So while he may not need to be involved in "every quantum event," it is far more important that he be involved in every human one. This could naturally lead into debate about free will or good vs. evil, but I figured I might take that on when/if it comes about.

-Eagle 1

P.S. I don't agree with your first statement as it stands... I don't think I.D. has to mean evolution couldn't take place, could you clarify?

If you mean me, I'm not Ste

I.D., at least as I understand it, runs like this:

Some systems in our body are irreducibly complex, which is to say that they require multiple parts to function. Multiple parts cannot evolve simultaneously, therefore our bodies cannot have evolved.

The conflict with evolution is quite clear, I think. I.D. is not the same as directed evolution, which is the belief that we did indeed evolve, but that this was not a random process - God selected which mutations would occur with us, mankind, as the target.

Someone said before - possibly in this very thread - that the idea of a God who sets up half a dozen simple laws of nature and sits back and watches the whole glory of the universe unfold is far more impressive than a God who is always 'tinkering' to correct imperfections in his creation. I have a lot of sympathy for that view - but of course there can never be any evidence to back it up, so it's probably outside the scope of this thread. For what it's worth, I don't see any danger in this view, but since I am not religious, I do not share it either.

Gif