Defenders of Peter Enns sometimes invoke the category of “inspired myths.” They justify this category as a divine accommodation to historical horizon of ANE readers. A scientifically accurate account would be unintelligible to ancient readers.
And it is, of course, true, that a creation account written in modern technical jargon would be unintelligible to ancient readers. However, assuming (arguendo) that Darwinism is true, it would be possible to express evolutionary ideas in popular language or picturesque descriptions.
If Gen 2 can describe the creation of the woman from the man, then the narrator could describe the creation of human beings from lower animals. The narrator could use the same basic imagery or process. God creates animals, then God uses that raw material to make the first man and woman (or the first men and women). If Gen 2 can depict God making a woman from the body of a man, then the narrator could also depict God making a man from the body of an animal. That would be theistic evolution, cast in terms understandable to ANE readers.
So “inspired myth” is a solution to a pseudoproblem. It operates on a false assumption regarding what was communicable to ancient readers. Assuming (arguendo) that theistic evolution is actually the way that God made mankind, it would be possible to express that idea in idiomatic terms already available to the narrator (e.g. animation, mediate creation, the imago Dei). It could go something like this:
So the Lord God caused a deep sleep to fall upon a beast of the earth, and while it slept took one of its ribs and closed up its place with flesh. And the rib that the Lord God had taken from the beast he made into a man. Then the Lord God breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became the image of God.
"So the fact that Gen 1-2 doesn’t give us an evolutionary creation account, even though that would be easy to do, invalidates the argument for revealed mythology."
ReplyDeleteI agree that it would have been easy to do.
Indeed. Your analogy brings to mind Nebuchadnezzar's humbling, Steve.
ReplyDeleteIf ancient readers could comprehend that reason was removed from Nebuchadnezzar by God, and that he became "like a wild animal" grazing grass, with long hair and nails, and such until God decided to return his reason, and was restored (once again) to be "like a man", then why couldn't readers comprehend God taking a lower order of animal and making it stand upright and granting it reason, making it into a man bearing God's image?
There are also the visions of the incomprehensible angelic beings with faces like an eagle, bull, man, lion, etc. with wings, hooves, and so forth.
Clearly these visions, while surely bizarre and otherworldly, were comprehensible enough for the ancient readers to grasp.
Inspired Myth = Fail.
In Christ,
CD
No. That is not correct. The idea that people may have common ancestry with animals was unthinkable to an ancient mindset.
ReplyDeleteThe idea that like produces like was normal because that is all that would have been visible to ancient eyes. They would have never seen a bear giving birth to a monkey, or a rose bush producing tulips.
Genesis is described in terms readily verifiable to ancients who had no concept of DNA, mutation, billions of years, etc. etc.
We can imagine that Genesis could have been written differently because we are already patently familiar with modern ideas about evolution and common ancestry.
You are reading your own familiarity with these ideas back into the text.
Quote: "So the fact that Gen 1-2 doesn’t give us an evolutionary creation account, even though that would be easy to do, invalidates the argument for revealed mythology."
ReplyDeleteTo phrase this as a syllogism:
P1 = Genesis 1-2 don't give us an evolutionary creation account.
P2 = It would be easy to do so.
:.
Conclusion: Revealed mythology is invalidated.
Without getting into the discussion itself, I'm afraid I am unable to see how the argument as formulated is even formally valid, much less that the conclusion follows from the premises. Along with commenter Truth Unites... and Divides, I agree that it would have been easy to do. But God didn't, did he?
It also would have been easy to suggest a spherical earth in orbit around the sun surrounded by a vast empty space, but God didn't reveal that either. Instead he expressed a three-storied cosmology with a firmament above separating the waters above from the waters beneath, the earth resting on pillars over an underworld and surrounded by water.
God accommodated the divinely revealed text to a worldview that neither you nor I believe describes the real world, but which predominated in the Ancient Near East. I will not presume to know why God chose to use the culture's cosmology, but I cannot deny that this is what the text reflects, even though it would have been easy for God to do otherwise. By your logic, any attempt to suggest accommodative language in the cosmology of Genesis 1-11 (and other passages even in the NT) is invalidated because God could easily have stated things differently but did not.
The mere fact that God could have used wording that would have expressly allowed an evolutionary creationist worldview, but did not, hardly invalidates the suggestion that revealed myth may present (note that I said may, not must) a solution to the hermeneutical dilemma posed by attempts to harmonize the Genesis cosmology with what creation appears to be telling us about itself.
Missional contextualization at least provides a possible rationale for why God would let cultural dogs lie undisturbed.
LIZA SAID:
ReplyDelete"The idea that like produces like was normal because that is all that would have been visible to ancient eyes. They would have never seen a bear giving birth to a monkey, or a rose bush producing tulips."
They didn't normally see talking donkeys, rods turning into snakes (and vice versa), floating ax-heads, water turning into wine, or sundry other nature miracles.
Klompenmaker said...
ReplyDelete“I agree that it would have been easy to do. But God didn't, did he?”
And maybe he didn’t reveal an evolutionary creation account because evolution (i.e. macroevolution, universal common descent) is false.
In any case you’re now backpedaling from your orginal argument. You initially said:
“Contemporary missionary praxis mandates a contextualization of the redemptive message in order to accommodate the revelation of God and the Gospel to the understanding of the target people group. Could it not be said that Genesis 1-11 uses accommodative anthropomorphism to present the fact of divine creation and human sin and need of redemption in a way that could be understood by ancient near-eastern people groups?”
Now you’re having to admit that God could have revealed an evolutionary creation account in terms comprehensible to the ancient audience. But in that case you can’t appeal to divine accommodation on the assumption that this would be unintelligible to the ancient audience, so God had to resort a factually false myth about special creation. For you’ve conceded that there was no such impediment to the understanding of the ancient audience.
“God accommodated the divinely revealed text to a worldview that neither you nor I believe describes the real world, but which predominated in the Ancient Near East.”
Unfortunately for you, you’re raising a stock objection which I already addressed when I reviewed Ed Babinski’s contribution to The Christian Delusion.
“…revealed myth may present (note that I said may, not must) a solution to the hermeneutical dilemma posed by attempts to harmonize the Genesis cosmology with what creation appears to be telling us about itself.”
Even if (arguendo) the two were in conflict, that wouldn’t be a “hermeneutical” dilemma. Hermeneutics isn’t concerned with reinterpreting the text to harmonize the text with modern assumptions. Rather, it concerns itself with interpreting the text on its own assumptions.
The difference is that Genesis is an attempt to describe the natural order of the world, a continuing, self-perpetuating pattern of being for nature.
ReplyDeleteTalking donkeys and floating ax heads represent one-off events even to those who wrote of them. They are miraculous, uncommon, bizarre interventions in the minds of the writers. They are not proposing that ll donkeys can talk if given the right circumstances, or that all axes have the ability to float.
Makes no difference to me, because Genesis is only a concerted effort to explain the human condition and the visible world in the most precise way that the ancient author could think of within the context of an ANE mindset and the narrative form.
It is only "inspired" in the sense that it captures the spirit of certain ideas about humans better than earlier creation myths.....and no more.
Liza said:
ReplyDelete"The idea that like produces like was normal because that is all that would have been visible to ancient eyes. They would have never seen a bear giving birth to a monkey, or a rose bush producing tulips."
Charles Darwin never saw things like "a bear giving birth to a monkey, or a rose bush producing tulips" with his naked eye either.
Can't someone argue Jacob knew something of rudimentary genetics including Mendelian inheritance in breeding his flocks of sheep and goats?
"[Genesis] is only 'inspired' in the sense that it captures the spirit of certain ideas about humans better than earlier creation myths.....and no more."
An assertion desperately seeking an argument.
Darwin never saw such a thing and he never proposed such a thing.
ReplyDeleteEvolution takes place over very long periods of time and very slow adaptations and mutations, so slowly that it becomes difficult to say in one brief period of time when one animal becomes a "different" animal.
Nobody knew of Mendelian genetics before Mendel's time...otherwise there would have been nothing for Mendel to discover and Mendelian genetics would be something else.
Jacob believed that sheep mating in front of striped or dotted poles/sticks would make streaked or spotted babies. That is not genetics and it is not true, either.
The Jacob example is just another example of a modern person reading current information into an ancient anecdote.
Jacob didn't know genetics.
Liza said:
ReplyDelete"Darwin never saw such a thing and he never proposed such a thing. Evolution takes place over very long periods of time and very slow adaptations and mutations, so slowly that it becomes difficult to say in one brief period of time when one animal becomes a 'different' animal."
1. If you're now going to concede "Darwin never saw such a thing and he never proposed such a thing [i.e. 'a bear giving birth to a monkey, or a rose bush producing tulips']," then why did you bring it up in the first place? But be that as it may. It sounds like we have to go back to square one. So let's try this again. Let's recall what you've said.
2. First, you said common descent would've been "unthinkable" to the ancients: "The idea that people may have common ancestry with animals was unthinkable to an ancient mindset." What about ancients like Thales who thought life originated from water? Or what about Anaximenes who thought life originated from air? What about Anaximander who thought humans originated from animals? We could name several other ancients who in the history of evolutionary thought could be considered legitimate predecessors to Darwin. Darwin wasn't the first to propose common descent.
3. If (as you say) ANE readers wouldn't have accepted common descent because evolution entails something outside or perhaps beyond their normal observation and expectation of like producing like, that is if the ancients only knew like producing like and would never have guessed more than like producing like, then how did someone like Darwin come to know more than like producing like?
Darwin didn't know the structure of DNA or how it replicates. Darwin didn't know about the role of mutations in genetic variation. Darwin didn't know about population genetics or even Mendelian genetics, which was around in Darwin's day but was not widely accepted. These hadn't been synthesized with his idea of natural selection to produce the modern neo-Darwinian synthesis. Indeed, as you later concede, Darwin never saw "a bear giving birth to a monkey, or a rose bush producing tulips."
Rather Darwin primarily used direct observation to note morphological changes and related variations among finch beaks, etc. Darwin primarily used his eyes to make such direct observations. Darwin formulated his theory of natural selection as well as fitness to account for the variation leading to speciation based on his observations about finch beaks and the like (although there were a few other ideas in the 19th century from other people which likewise played a role in Darwin's formulation of his theory, and they too relied heavily on direct observation). Finally he made an inference from these microevolutionary changes to macroevolution and ultimately universal common descent.
Since Darwin never saw "a bear giving birth to a monkey, or a rose bush producing tulips," and he too "had no concept of DNA, mutation," and the like, then how on your argument is Darwin privileged over the ancients in what prerequisite knowledge it takes to discover evolution?
Of course, like I've already said, Darwin noticed variation and proposed speciation from variation. But the ancients likewise noticed variation. However they didn't provide the theory of natural selection as the mechanism for variation leading to speciation and hence evolution. Again, natural selection is Darwin's key contribution. It just happened that Darwin had the key insight. So what did Darwin have that the ancients didn't have besides the insight to formulate natural selection as the main (though not sole) mechanism for evolution?
4. And that's my point with Jacob too. I'm not at all pointing out that Jacob certainly knew genetics as we understand genetics today. Hence it was a question, not a statement. Rather Jacob may not have known about natural selection but he knew about artificial selection i.e. selective breeding. That's the point.
ReplyDelete5. BTW, you seem to suffer from chronological snobbery.
Liza said:
"Nobody knew of Mendelian genetics before Mendel's time...otherwise there would have been nothing for Mendel to discover and Mendelian genetics would be something else."
No one "knew" Mendelian genetics in the years following Mendel either. It wasn't widely accepted. That'd have to wait until Morgan "rediscovered" Mendelian genetics.
"The Jacob example is just another example of a modern person reading current information into an ancient anecdote."
1. When you say "[Genesis] is only 'inspired' in the sense that it captures the spirit of certain ideas about humans better than earlier creation myths.....and no more," this is an example of a modern person reading current information into an ancient text. Ancient Israelites like Moses and Aaron wouldn't have shared your view.
2. Besides, you make it seem like it's never legit to do so. While it's illicit to interpret eisegetically, I don't necessarily see anything wrong with things like modern archaeology and science informing the proper exegesis to a certain degree.
On a related note, the following piece makes a couple of debatable assumptions. Nevertheless it highlights the fact that, while no one would say Jacob understood modern genetics, modern genetics or at least Mendelian genetics might be used to try and explain the breeding of flocks without committing eisegesis, I don't think (particularly it's speculative and noted as such anyway):
ReplyDelete"[T]he pure bred cattle could probably have separate genotypes (ie AAgg and aaGG), which can be crossed to form the F1 genotypes AaGg, which can then interbreed to form the F2 genotypes AAGG, AAGg, AAgg, AaGG, AaGg, Aagg, aaGG, aaGg and aagg in the Mendelian ratio of 1:2:1:2:4:2:1:2:1 , and the ratio of those which are homozygous on both alleles compare to those who are heterozygous on one or both alleles is 4:12 . Assuming incomplete dominance of the A and G allele, all the different genotypes in the following F2 genotypes would have different coat color or pattern; different phenotypes, and the ratio of offspring with pure color coat (denoted by homozygosity in both alleles in the genotype ie AAGG or AAgg) to that of mixed color coat would be 4:12 or 1:3. So therefore, it is no wonder that Jacob's flock would increase in numbers. A larger variety of genes would also increase the genetic vitality of Jacob's flock, thus making his flock stronger.
"Another factor which plays to his advantage is probably the presence of Barr bodies which would contribute to the spotted or speckled coat color in heterozygous females. Assuming that one coat color gene is located on the X chromosome, heterozygous females would have the genotype XBXW for example. To avoid overexpression of the X chromosome, females cells typically silence one of their two X chromosomes in an entirely random manner, therefore approximately one half would silence the XB chromosome, while the other half would silence the XW chromosome. The coat cells which silence the XB chromosome would express the coat color coded by the XW chromosome and vice versa, thus explaining the spotted or speckled coats of the female cattle. That Jacob choses these heterozygous animals [would] means that he would chose those with higher genetic variety and hence vitality."
Neuro,
ReplyDeleteI despise the term "chronological snobbery". It's a dumb term that doesn't contribute to any discussion other than to try and discredit an argument that overturns an idea that people may have believed in the past.
I am assuming that if you go to the doctor that you would prefer that he had some chronological snobbery and didn't try to treat you with medieval medical knowledge. People only claim chronological snobbery in discussions about philosophy/religion/ideas. I think the vast majority of people are just fine with chronological snobbery when it comes to medicine, technology, and industrial/agricultural advances.
"Chronological Snobbery" is just a smoke screen, a red herring.
Knowledge is something that is cumulative and exponential. Ideas build upon each other and rely on each other. That is not to say that ancient people may not have the seed of an idea, or an inkling of how something might work. Most of those seeds and ideas are directly related to whatever observable phenomena would have been available to an ancient person or culture. However, certain concepts would have been beyond the scope of their understanding simply because all of the necessary pieces of the puzzle wouldn't have been found yet. They couldn't know certain things with their very limited resources.
This doesn't make them stupid, or make later people chronological snobs. It simply means that every person and every culture lives within certain mental borders, most of which they have little control over.
I brought up the Darwin example because Darwin did see some variation. He spent his life working on that . It wasn't something he came up with in a single day, from a single observation. Darwin lived in a time in which he had the resources of information from past centuries and the ability to spend time devoted to studying these issues.
Ancient people spent most of their lives working and surviving. The few who were thinkers had a very limited audience of others who had the time, let alone the education to even understand what they were talking about.
(breaking the comment for length)
AS far as your ancient examples:
ReplyDeleteThey were right in their own way, weren't they? Without air or water, nothing can live. Every animal must either breathe air or die--or live in water, or drink water or die.
This is an easily observable truth. It is also why we have the close association in the Bible with the terms "breath" and "spirit", with man coming to life when God breathed into him.
Without air, without breathing, there is no life.
Anaximander is interesting, but we are talking about ANE cultures, not Ancient Greek cultures. I think it is important to compare apples to apples here.
The whole thing about Jacob is silly. The story doesn't claim any understanding of genetics. In fact, the story says that Laban separated all of the spotted, streaked animals and gave Jacob watch over the unspotted animals. There is an emphasis placed on this in the story because the writer is trying to make the point that Jacob got his striped/spotted flock through God's intervention. It was portrayed as a miracle and blessing, not as an understanding of genetics. Jacob's attempt to influence the event shows Jacob's shrewdness(in ANE terms) and God's blessing of him.
1. Liza, you spend a good chunk of your first comment complaining about my use of chronological snobbery. Besides the fact that I could bracket the point, it's hardly the main point of my response to you, wouldn't you say?
ReplyDeleteThen you spend the rest of the comment telling us things which are largely irrelvant to your original contention against Steve's post. Interesting, perhaps, but again largely irrelevant to the argument.
Likewise for much of your second comment.
Anyway, whatever corks your bottle, I guess.
2. "Anaximander is interesting, but we are talking about ANE cultures, not Ancient Greek cultures. I think it is important to compare apples to apples here."
Although in context that's what Steve may have said, that's not how you responded. That's not how you originally framed your own point. You simply used the generic term "ancient."
You said: "The idea that people may have common ancestry with animals was unthinkable to an ancient mindset. The idea that like produces like was normal because that is all that would have been visible to ancient eyes. They would have never seen a bear giving birth to a monkey, or a rose bush producing tulips."
So I was responding to you on your own terms.
3. "The whole thing about Jacob is silly. The story doesn't claim any understanding of genetics. In fact, the story says that Laban separated all of the spotted, streaked animals and gave Jacob watch over the unspotted animals. There is an emphasis placed on this in the story because the writer is trying to make the point that Jacob got his striped/spotted flock through God's intervention. It was portrayed as a miracle and blessing, not as an understanding of genetics. Jacob's attempt to influence the event shows Jacob's shrewdness(in ANE terms) and God's blessing of him."
Is this what I've claimed? No. Re-read what I wrote above.
BTW, I should add:
ReplyDelete"I brought up the Darwin example because Darwin did see some variation. He spent his life working on that . It wasn't something he came up with in a single day, from a single observation. Darwin lived in a time in which he had the resources of information from past centuries and the ability to spend time devoted to studying these issues."
The same could be said of many of the ancients who spent their lives on certain fields or subjects.
"Ancient people spent most of their lives working and surviving."
We spend most of our lives "working and surviving."
"The few who were thinkers had a very limited audience of others who had the time, let alone the education to even understand what they were talking about."
What does it matter whether ancient or modern thinkers can convince or inform an audience about their theories? Truth or falsehood aren't adjudicated by popular vote or acceptance or somesuch.
Mendel didn't immediately convince everyone of Mendelian genetics. But he's since been vindicated.
I doubt most people today understand quantum mechanics. Or the special and general theories of relativity. Or even Newtonian physics. Or, in fact, much that's contained in modern science. Yet they're commonly accepted as true. Generally speaking most people believe what scientists say largely on authority.
Neuro,
ReplyDeleteI was responding to specifically to your comments, not the original post any longer. If you feel that I have gone off track it is because that is how conversations evolve, they meander further from the original point of contact and drift into other areas.
I wasn't trying to be evasive. I was trying to respond to things you wrote.
I could have been more specific in my use of "ancient". I assumed that because the conversation was happening within the context of Genesis that it was self-evident that I was thinking specifically of ANE culture.
I'm going to assume that you didn't survey ancient Mayan or Aztec literature or beliefs when thinking about your comments, right? Because you know I didn't exactly exclude them either, yet you didn't feel the need to bring them into the conversation.
RE: Jacob
I understood what you wrote. As you stated, the info from the website you linked to is completely speculative. Must I provide a defense against a speculative, unproven idea?
If you read my comment, you will see that, even though I didn't state it explicitly, the story doesn't disagree that Jacob had an idea about selective breeding. I would imagine that anyone tending animals would be able to have access to the idea. In fact, that is what the story implies when Laban separates the flocks; that he's removing the opportunity for Jacob to get his spotted lambs, and that Jacob has to find a different way to get them--through the stripped poles.
The entire story turns on the idea that Laban and Jacob have an understanding that spotted/striped parents make spotted/striped babies.
"Ancient people spent most of their lives working and surviving."
ReplyDeleteWe spend most of our lives "working and surviving."
Not in the same way. How many daily hours of "free time" does the average person have? How many ancients had daily "free time". Before industrialization and technological advances most people spent their entire day farming, or working, or accumulating firewood to heat their homes, growing food to feed their livestock, hauling water to their homes and animals. Women spent their entire day baking, cleaning, doing everything by hand .
You simply can't compare the two in any way.
As far as ancient thinkers go:
My point is that knowledge increases most rapidly in an environment where there are many people working together on ideas. When large sections of a population have access to information it is easier for ideas to thrive.
How quickly was Mendel vindicated? WIthin a generation of his work. In the long run, that's not necessarily slow. Ideas take time to take root. 40 years is not a big deal in terms of time.
"I was responding to specifically to your comments, not the original post any longer."
ReplyDeleteI find this rather evasive then.
"If you feel that I have gone off track it is because that is how conversations evolve, they meander further from the original point of contact and drift into other areas."
For my part I've tried to redirect the conversation but apparently to no avail.
I agree you're going off track. You say this is "because that is how conversations evolve." Yet it's not as if you're not at least partially in control of how the conversation "evolves." It's a two-way street.
"I'm going to assume that you didn't survey ancient Mayan or Aztec literature or beliefs when thinking about your comments, right? Because you know I didn't exactly exclude them either, yet you didn't feel the need to bring them into the conversation."
Actually, you're just trying to obfuscate the matter. But it's pretty simple. You brought up the fact that the ancients would've found it "unthinkable" to subscribe to common descent. I brought up a couple counterexamples of ancients who happened to propose common descent.
But I guess by your lights if I didn't also bring in every major group of ancient peoples which has ever existed, then my point doesn't qualify. Well, we could spend quite a bit of time listing ancient peoples I didn't happen to include in my counterexamples.
"I understood what you wrote. As you stated, the info from the website you linked to is completely speculative. Must I provide a defense against a speculative, unproven idea?"
No, you just have to stop putting words into my mouth.
"If you read my comment, you will see that, even though I didn't state it explicitly, the story doesn't disagree that Jacob had an idea about selective breeding. I would imagine that anyone tending animals would be able to have access to the idea."
Good job! Thanks for finally conceding my point.
"Not in the same way. How many daily hours of 'free time' does the average person have? How many ancients had daily free time'. Before industrialization and technological advances most people spent their entire day farming, or working, or accumulating firewood to heat their homes, growing food to feed their livestock, hauling water to their homes and animals. Women spent their entire day baking, cleaning, doing everything by hand."
ReplyDeleteYou've missed my point here. The point is if you're going to argue ancient people spend most of their time working and surviving and hence weren't able to "do" science due to lack of time, then I could easily argue most modern people do the same yet if we take the modern period as a whole then it would seem we're doing quite a bit of science. Is this what I'm personally arguing? No. Instead I'm only saying this because it responds to you on your own grounds.
However if you want to know what I think, I think we're not talking about "most people." Most people did not and do not make scientific discoveries. Then or now. We're talking about specific individual such as scientists and related thinkers. In ancient times I suppose some of them were called philosophers too.
Also, some ancient thinkers had a lot time, while others did not. Some moderns have a lot of time, while others do not.
Some scientists take years to happen on a discovery or formulate a theorem. Others take moments or do so in a relatively short period of time. Watson and Crick unraveled the structure of DNA and Einstein formulated his theories of relativity in a relatively (no pun intended) short period of time, for example.
Plus, since you mention "Before industrialization and technological advances," this would include some of the modern scientific period since part of the modern scientific period existed in pre-industrial times. It would include people like Kepler, Galileo, and Newton who lived in pre-industrial times. They weren't struggling to "work and survive" all the time like you suggest. They seemed to have had or been able to make time to conduct science.
BTW, you're reading a lot of your modern "mindset" into all this.
"My point is that knowledge increases most rapidly in an environment where there are many people working together on ideas."
That may be your point now, which I suppose you'd expect us to simply chalk up to "how conversations evolve, they meander further from the original point of contact and drift into other areas," but it wasn't your original point. You've shifted the goalposts. Originally you were contending the ancients couldn't have gained knowledge because they spent so much of their time working and trying to survive. Now you've added this further point without conceding your previous point. When I overturn one of your points, you simply add a new one which isn't directly relevant to the previous one. That's hardly fair.
"When large sections of a population have access to information it is easier for ideas to thrive."
This might sound ideal but it doesn't necessarily work in real life. For one thing, it depends in part on which "large sections of a population" we're talking about. It's not necessarily the case that it's "easier for ideas to thrive" if they're weighed down by a large body of bureaucrats or administrators.
Neuro,
ReplyDeleteOk. Whatever.
I thought we were engaging in a conversation with give and take. I didn't realize that everything I wrote was supposed to stay narrowly on the topic of my original post.
You have gone off on several tangents, which I responded too, yet I'm the one being chastised?
Selective breeding is not he same thing as Mendelian genetics. Observing that spotted parents make spotted children isn't the same thing as understanding recessive genes and how unspotted parents might make spotted children.
Even if unspotted parents had recessive genes which could produce spotted children , it wouldn't be all of the children, only the children with both recessive genes would be spotted. This is just another way that the text does not match up to a scientific understanding of genetics, because only a minority of the children(lambs) would be spotted instead of all of the sheep placed in front of the tripped pole.
The ratio for recessive genes is 3:1.---3 dominant colored to 1 recessively colored.
I'm going to end the conversation here because I'm bored with it now. Plus, you have brought up even more tangents which delve into how average people assimilate information and comparisons between ages.
I can't answer any of your comments without being accused of being evasive or wandering off topic.
It seems as if in your mind modern=bad and having a modern mindset prevents people from being able to make judgments about ancient cultures.
A very interesting viewpoint considering the amount of modern eisegesis involved in some of your propositions and the original post.
.
Can put away the polemics and role play a bit? I'm not setting a rhetorical trap for an argument - I don't have any hidden agenda to get you to paint yourself into a logical corner. Just humor me a bit.
ReplyDeleteSuppose you were a pastor and I were a member of your congregation, all other things being the same. I am not one of your deacons or elders, I'm just a layperson, a decent enough ordinary member of your church who takes his faith seriously enough to have attended seminary, and who takes truth seriously. I've come to you because you are a friend whom I hold in high regard and someone whose judgment I respect.
I tell you that I believe the historic truths of the faith: the reality of human depravity and my own sin, my need of redemption which can be found only in Christ, that God is Creator and sustainer of all things.
But, I explain, I am also a student of God's creation, and everywhere I looked I found the evidence for an ancient universe and biological evolution overwhelmingly compelling and finally convincing, leading me to a quandary.
To this point my view of inerrancy has been intact, but there are real theological challenges. Genomic evidence seems settled that at no time was there a breeding population of modern human beings of less than 10,000 individuals. I can find no geological evidence for a global flood and myriads of evidence against one. So I've come to you to see what you think I should do with these ideas I find troubling.
I'm not out to engage in a campaign or to evangelize my ideas. I simply can't ignore data which seem to challenge the historicity of Genesis 1-11 and the idea of a historical Fall. I still embrace the Doctrines of Grace.
So what would be your counsel to me, pastor? I hope you'll answer that way because apart from not being a member of a church pastored by you, everything else describes where I actually have been and am in my walk with Christ.
So if I were a friend and not some anonymous Internet commenter, how would you respond in a way designed to comfort my doubts and reinforce my faith? An inner struggle in the life of the mind may not seem as real as struggle with divorce, sexual temptation, illness or hardship, but those who have doubts over intellectual matters are no less in need of wise and compassionate counsel, are they not? Can we not say alongside the father of the afflicted boy in Mark 9:24, "I do believe - help my unbelief!"
i) I’m not sure what you think I’m supposed to say in that scenario. Looks like a set-up where you’ve framed the issues to yield a foregone conclusion. So what’s left to talk about?
ReplyDeleteIf you treat your framework as nonnegotiable, then there’s nothing more to say. If you take for granted your assumptions about the “data” or the “evidence,” then, by definition, something else has to give. That’s a forced option.
ii) What if the pastor doesn’t see the evidence lining up the way you do?
iii) There are, of course, some “Evangelicals” who subscribe to theistic evolution (e.g. Don Page, J. J. Davis, B.B. Warfield, Alister McGrath). However, I don’t see an exegetical pathway from Scripture to Darwin.
iv) I’d ask you if you’d read the best young-earth creationists (e.g. Byl, Wise, Sarfati, Snelling, Marcus Ross).
I’d ask you if you’d read the best old-earth creationists (e.g. Collins, Poythress, Walton, Youngblood).
I’d ask you what critics of evolution you’d read (e.g. Berlinski, Chien, Dembski, Meyer, Richards, Wells, J. C. Sanford).
I’d ask you if you studied temporal metrics. I’d ask you what you studied in philosophy of science. I’d ask you if you’d considered the full implications of creation ex nihilo.
v) Sounds to me like there’s a veiled threat in the way you’ve cast the alternatives; that unless the pastor gives his parishioner an out, the parishioner will turn his back on the Christian faith.
However, Scripture means whatever it means. You can accept or reject it (with the corresponding consequences), but you have to accept it or reject it on its own terms. The reader must be prepared to hear the Bible as the original audience heard it. That’s true of literature in general.
We can’t make it say or not say something just because that would conflict with our precommitments. We’d be fooling ourselves.
LIZA SAID:
ReplyDelete"The difference is that Genesis is an attempt to describe the natural order of the world, a continuing, self-perpetuating pattern of being for nature."
Actually, Genesis describes creation, providence, and miracle. It alternates. Discontinuous as well as continuous events. Unrepeatable as well as repeatable events.
"Talking donkeys and floating ax heads represent one-off events even to those who wrote of them. They are miraculous, uncommon, bizarre interventions in the minds of the writers. They are not proposing that ll donkeys can talk if given the right circumstances, or that all axes have the ability to float."
Now you're backpedaling. Your initial objection was based on what the ancients observed. However, the ancients didn't normally observe these "one-off" events. Yet that didn't prevent OT writers from reporting "one-off" events.
"It is only 'inspired' in the sense that it captures the spirit of certain ideas about humans better than earlier creation myths.....and no more."
So you yourself reject "inspired myths." You simply do so on different grounds.
"I thought we were engaging in a conversation with give and take. I didn't realize that everything I wrote was supposed to stay narrowly on the topic of my original post."
ReplyDeleteYou're the one who initiated the critique of Steve's post.
Steve responded to you.
Your response to him passed over his point.
I've also responded to you. But you've missed my point.
In addition you've raised other issues which are mainly irrelevant to your original critique.
But your subsequent responses meander or wander from your original objection. Or perhaps a better way to put it is that your subsequent responses keep weaving in and out with your original objection, yet without withdrawing your original objection once it was overturned.
Readers might keep in mind Liza's original criticism was that the ancients would have thought evolution "unthinkable" because evolution wasn't "visible to ancients." Again, keep in mind what Liza originally said: "No. That is not correct. The idea that people may have common ancestry with animals was unthinkable to an ancient mindset. The idea that like produces like was normal because that is all that would have been visible to ancient eyes. They would have never seen a bear giving birth to a monkey, or a rose bush producing tulips."
Readers might also keep in mind what I asked him. If it's true the ancients would have thought evolution "unthinkable" because evolution wasn't "visible to ancients," if they only saw "like produc[ing] like," then how did Darwin discover the theory of evolution since evolution wasn't "visible" to him either, not in the way Liza means, since he too only saw "like produc[ing] like"? I went on to say Darwin didn't see the structure of DNA, he didn't understand genetics like we do, etc. What Darwin saw wouldn't have been significantly different to what the ancients saw. Darwin came up with natural selection based on seeing variation in nature (e.g. finch beaks). He theorized variation led to speciation. He theorized natural selection and fitness to explain this. So other than having the inspiration to come up with natural selection and fitness, what privileged Darwin in contrast to these ancients based on Liza's objection? Sure there were various ideas in the 19th century that would've influenced Darwin (e.g. Lyell's geology). But as far as Liza's objection is concerned, evolution wasn't "visible" to Darwin either, yet Darwin came up with this theory. Liza never rebutted this point.
Also remember it was Liza's absurd criteria to say the following which not even a modern evolutionary biologist would say: "They would have never seen a bear giving birth to a monkey, or a rose bush producing tulips." (Of course, Liza later denied this anyway when he said, "Darwin never saw such a thing and he never proposed such a thing." This isn't exactly a retraction but I guess that's the most one can expect from Liza.)
"You have gone off on several tangents, which I responded too, yet I'm the one being chastised?"
My responses were pegged on your tangential responses.
"Selective breeding is not he same thing as Mendelian genetics. Observing that spotted parents make spotted children isn't the same thing as understanding recessive genes and how unspotted parents might make spotted children."
ReplyDeleteWas that what I said? Was that my point? No.
I pointed out selective breeding not because I was arguing Jacob definitively knew Mendelian genetics. For one thing, if you re-read my original response to you, I didn't make a statement but asked a question. And the point of the question was the same or similar to the point about Darwin based on your argument. Given your objection Darwin didn't have a much more significant background in prerequisites than a lot of his predecessors had in coming up with his theory of evolution with the mechanism of natural selection in the context of fitness and survival. He too saw "like producing like." He too saw what was "visible." But he just had the key insight or inspiration or however you want to put it to theorize natural selection as the mechanism for variation leading to speciation, etc. If one of the ancients had been so inspired, perhaps based on observing variation in nature like Jacob observed was possible in his artificial selection (selective breeding) of his flocks, why couldn't one of them have come up with natural selection as well, again given your criteria of the "visible"?
After all, Darwin's natural selection was itself based in part on seeing artificial selection (selective breeding) at work. If ancients could choose to breed animals for specific traits, if this knowledge and practice were known since ancient times, and if Darwin could theorize nature similarly "choosing" to favor or disfavor specific traits in animals or organisms like humans choosing to favor or disfavor specific traits in some animals, then again what privileged Darwin over ancients like Jacob as far as what was observed is concerned? That's the point.
"Even if unspotted parents had recessive genes which could produce spotted children, it wouldn't be all of the children, only the children with both recessive genes would be spotted...The ratio for recessive genes is 3:1.---3 dominant colored to 1 recessively colored."
For one thing, it sounds like you just quickly googled for info about Mendelian genetics without actually understanding it to the level necessary to at least begin to interact with the original excerpt.
More to the point, it sounds like you didn't even read the excerpt I cited since you miss one part of it and another part of what you say was already assumed in the very first sentence of the excerpt above ("[T]he pure bred cattle could probably have separate genotypes (ie AAgg and aaGG), which can be crossed to form the F1 genotypes AaGg...").
The excerpt went on to say far more. It didn't stick to the first generation. It went on to talk about subsequent generations too.
It also talked about other aspects of genetics. Although granted not all of it was solely about Mendelian genetics. But the starting point and foundation took off from Mendelian genetics.
"I'm going to end the conversation here because I'm bored with it now."
ReplyDeleteThis sort of statement is frequently the last parting shot indicating someone has lost the debate.
"I can't answer any of your comments without being accused of being evasive or wandering off topic."
"Accused" is an ironic word choice. Why feel "accused"?
If it's true that you're "being evasive or wandering off topic," then it's perfectly legitimate to point it out.
"It seems as if in your mind modern=bad and having a modern mindset prevents people from being able to make judgments about ancient cultures."
No, that's not my position.
More importantly, what do you base your "judgments" on?
"Plus, you have brought up even more tangents which delve into how average people assimilate information and comparisons between ages."
Like I said I've simply been responding to your tangential responses.
Anyway, I'd encourage readers to read or re-read the thread and see whether or not Liza makes a good case for his original objection to Steve's post.
Thanks for your response, Steve. Your suspicion is unfounded - I don't have a hidden agenda or any implied threat.
ReplyDeleteThe quote marks around "Evangelical" in your response inclines me to think we're in "no true Scotsman" territory, Steve.
I'd be happy to respond in detail but a 4096 character limit limits this venue - you can email me if you would like to read it, but don't feel compelled to do so. I am well acquainted with the issues and most of the authors you name, except I'm not sure what you mean by "temporal metrics."
The Pew Forum Global Survey of Evangelical Protestant Leaders published in June of this year at the Lausanne Conference in Cape Town has 47% of leaders rejecting evolution while slightly fewer, 41% are open to it, so I have a feeling I'm not the only evolutionary creationist you'll run into.
Thanks for taking the time to respond. I guess we'll have to agree to disagree agreeably.