Nathan- What kind of evidence, if presented to you today, would convince you that Darwinian evolution is responsible for complex life? What kind of evidence would convince you of intelligent design or young earth creationism?

There’s an ocean of biological and geological data available to us; I don’t think we need to wait for any more to come in.

Temporary agnosticism is usually a reasonable position, but how far should one take it? Should I reserve judgment on whether DNA is responsible for heredity? Is it possible to have a “good scientific debate” of Copernican cosmology?

I just typed “new fossil discovered” into Google and this is the first site that turned up: http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg19025464.600.html

“IT WAS one of the most important events of the last 400 million years: the moment our fishy ancestors began hauling themselves onto dry land. Now a fossil from the very beginning of that crucial transition has been
found in the remote Arctic.”

Evolution predicts such a transitional species would need to exist.

Creationism predicts those fossils shouldn’t be there.

Intelligent design predicts… nothing.

This is the trend every time a new piece of evidence is discovered.

Matthew D.- Let me get this straight: you don’t want to be a Christian, but you don’t want to not be a Christian either?

I am kind of at a loss as to what to say. You are providing an incredible demonstration of how wildly removed from common-sense and logic an individual can go when he is not willing to admit the obvious.

Let me ask you if this is hard for you to understand:

“In my father’s day, he had to work all day, then travel for 5 days before finding another job.”

Does that make sense? Or is it too complex?

I take you to not be an intellectually incompetent fellow, and your mastery of the English language is relatively apparent, so I suppose you probably understand this. Why? Because the intent of the phrase is clear, and there is blatant contextual clarification on the connotation of the words in the sentence.

Why are you so unwilling to appeal to basic rules of grammar and context when it applies to a book that you have emotional/moral/philosophical attachments to?

Again – I am not arguing that the Bible is true, as that is an aside. But you may as well not pretend to be approaching the issue from an objective stance when you are being so dramatically swayed by what you want to believe.

-Matt

I would disagree with you that the hebrew is as clear as you make it out to be. But I highly doubt we may ever agree on that point, being as subjective as it is.

It’s not that I’m not accepting Genesis 1 as a historical narrative, it’s just that … in light of other information … I’m stuck having to embrace what is, to me, an unclear and confusing text when allowed outside it’s box, especially considering the possible gap between Gen 1:1-2, a theory accepted and embraced for years before The Genesis Flood was released.

It is kind of funny that you take it to be a “rebuke” when I suggest that George is more intellectually honest then you…

Not sure what you mean there. Just because there are two opposite extremes doesn’t mean the truth is held in one or the other, nor does it mean that those who fall in the middle are more or less intellectually honest for doing so.

Nathan – you again confirm my point. I have also read into the Hebrew original and, sorry to disagree again, but you are looking pretty hard if you see something besides an indication of a historical, short time period being reported. And that does not even begin to address the moral quandary represented by an origins model accepting death before sin – but that doesn’t really matter if the Bible is a secondary authority rather than a primary one.

My point is not to argue that the Genesis account, or the rest of the Bible, is accurate or true – but that you make yourself a joke when you think you can pick out some moral issues from the Bible that are far more debatable than the origins topics that you so freely rewrite.

It is kind of funny that you take it to be a “rebuke” when I suggest that George is more intellectually honest then you…

-Matt

George is more intellectually honest to reject the entire platform than to pick and choose like you try to do.

I’ve been arguing the reciprocal of that statement for some time now- it’s more intellectually honest to accept the entire platform literally (ok, even the most die-hard fundamentalist will readily admit that there IS metaphor and allegory throughout both testaments- better to say they accept the entire platform seriously) than to pick and choose. When you embark on the latter course, the question is, why take anything the Bible has to say seriously? I don’t personally think it’s clear either way whether Genesis 1 is intended to be taken literally, but there are other sections that demand a literal treatment- and many of them not only offend what we think we know in a scientific sense, but what we think we know in a moral sense as well. If, as some argue, critical thinking must be applied to such passages (which critical thinking somehow always seems to remove the offending passages from consideration), shouldn’t we apply critical thinking Christ’s resurrection, or to the content of the Commandments? And then, we are forced to ask, how does one go about doing that?

Coming from a former, hard-line Young Earth Creationist, I can assure you that my current position on Genesis 1 is anything but what I wanted it to be. It’s not that I came up with it out of the blue in order to appease anyone. Ask George. He has the emails. I’m serious. I was a YEC to the core.

Perhaps you’re right though … at least insomuch as the modern translations have done a good job of sanitizing Genesis 1 from any confusion.

And I’m not saying that it is necessarily clearly pointing to any other theory. Absolutely not! Believe me, I’ve had many a conversation with my dad (who knows Hebrew) pouring over the original texts, looking for clarification. The sad fact is, there is none.

Take for example many of the classifications of animals in our English translations, then look at what the original words meant. The difference would surprise you. For instance, the word “tanniyn” — translated as “whales” in KJV — actually could mean as little as a simple “snake”. My point? It’s not as clear as we would like it to be.

Again, I’m not drawing any conclusions … I’m just saying that even the slightest of lack of clarity is enough for me to take a step back and rethink the current understanding of Genesis.

This isn’t even mentioning the evidentiary reasons for being “caught in the middle”, but that’s another post, I’m sure.

I think the disturbing thing to those outside of the “Christian circle” is that Genesis is clear- strikingly clear. That is exactly why there is such an issue with modern paradigms of earth history – Genesis was written very clearly as a historical book and taken that way by generations of believers (and sorry, the idea that there is contextual uncertainty on the meaning of yowm is ignorance – it has hundreds of oft pointed out contextual confirmations for the traditional day interpretation).

It is just a laughing matter when a non-believer points out the contradiction in the beliefs of old-earth “biblicists”, only to be responded to by being told that, no matter how clear, the bible DOESN’T actually say what it says. And then they that unbeliever finds it even more entertaining when he is told that on issues of “morality” the Bible suddenly DOES say what it actually says.

George is more intellectually honest to reject the entire platform than to pick and choose like you try to do.

-Matt

How about this … let’s make some plans for the coming weeks to do some more guest posting. If you’re up for it, I’d like to send you the details.

Game?