Religion and science

[Karel]

[snip]
Understanding Evolution, for Teachers:
http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evosite/evohome.html

Well, it may be for teachers, but it also has a "learning evolution" section, complete with "evolution 101", that is interesting for everyone. Very nice link!

Regards,

Karel

[Rob]

“The fossil record [i.e. the body of hard facts] had caused Darwin more grief than joy. Nothing distressed him more than the Cambrian explosion, the coincident appearance of almost all complex organic designs [. . .]” Stephen Jay Gould, The Panda’s Thumb, 1980, pp. 238-239.

The so-called “Cambrian explosion” is in fact empirical scientific evidence in favor of the Genesis account of creation, much to the chagrin of evolutionists and despite any attempts of theirs to explain it away.

[Karel]

“The fossil record [i.e. the body of hard facts] had caused Darwin more grief than joy. Nothing distressed him more than the Cambrian explosion, the coincident appearance of almost all complex organic designs [. . .]” Stephen Jay Gould, The Panda’s Thumb, 1980, pp. 238-239.

The so-called “Cambrian explosion” is in fact empirical scientific evidence in favor of the Genesis account of creation, much to the chagrin of evolutionists and despite any attempts of theirs to explain it away.

If you quote Gould, please add, from the same paragraph: "His opponents interpreted this event as the moment of creation, for not a single trace of Precambrian life had been discovered when Darwin wrote the Origin of Species. (We now have an extensive record of monerans from these early rocks, see essay 21)".

If this was the moment of creation for the sea fauna, why do we now have faunas before the Cambrian? If this wan't the moment of that creation, how is it in favor of the Genesis account? And it is good to realize that while currently the waters teem with life, the creatures of the Cambrian explosion are completely absent. Are you sure those are meant, and not the current ones? But also, the current ones were absent then. Yet in Genesis we read "every living and moving thing with which the water teems".

Could you explain a bit more why the Cambrian explosion is "empirical scientific evidence in favor of the Genesis account of creation", and take my questions above into account?

Scientists are currently unable to explain the Cambrian explosion to their satisfaction. They are working on it, however, and have ideas enough. Perhaps we should discredit them for that, as you seem to suggest, but I cannot see how that would be justified.

Regards,

Karel

[Rob]

"His opponents interpreted this event as the moment of creation, for not a single trace of Precambrian life had been discovered when Darwin wrote the Origin of Species. (We now have an extensive record of monerans from these early rocks, see essay 21)".

I did not intentionally leave out that portion of the quote; it was not included in the reference to which I linked. Nevertheless, I do not contend that the Cambrian explosion is "the moment of creation," only that it proves many diverse species of multicellular life appeared relatively suddenly, and this harmonizes with the Genesis account. The fact that bacteria existed prior to this is not a problem. The problem is for those who espouse evolution vs. creation to explain how all the species of multicellular life appear in the same lower Cambrian stratum but nothing remotely resembling any of them prior to that. And it is a huge problem.

[. . .] why do we now have faunas before the Cambrian?

If this is true, which I don't think it is, (I don't think bacteria qualify as fauna, and even if they do, they are still far removed from the Cambrian fauna.) then I would have to say that God created some creatures earlier than he created some others. But please bear in mind, while I question the validity of the dating of those fossil layers, I do not believe the Genesis creative days were literally 24 hours in length either. I view those "days" more in terms of creative periods, each of which spanned many thousands, maybe even millions, of years.

According to the Genesis account, the sea creatures and birds were created on the fifth creative "day," but it does not tell us how long that day was, nor in what sequence the various species were created. It does say, however, that each was created 'after its kind,' so that we do not have sharks giving birth to dolphins or dolphins to hoot owls. The early Cambrain fossil record is consistent with this; it is not consistent with evolutionary theory. This is the basis for my contention that true science agrees with the creation account.

Perhaps we should discredit them for that, as you seem to suggest [. . .]

I give credit where credit is due, which is why I give credit to the Almighty God as Creator of heaven and earth and all things which fill them. Science is a marvellous tool we have, and it has contributed greatly to man's understanding of the world around us. But like any other tool, it can be misused; and indeed it has, not only by its being used to create horribly efficient means of death and destruction, but also by its use to turn countless millions of people away from the living God, the true source of our very lives and the one to whom we owe our existence.

[Rob]

Update: Okay, a little further research reveals that bacteria do belong to a certain subset of fauna called "infauna," but as I said these are nothing even remotely resembling the multicellular species appearing in the early Cambrian period.

Here's an interesting quote:

"Aside from a few enigmatic forms that may or may not represent animals, all modern animal phyla with any fossil record to speak of (except bryozoans) appear to have representatives in the Cambrian, and of these most except sponges seem to have originated just after or just before the start of the period. [. . .] Fairly extensive Precambrian Ediacaran faunas have been identified in the past 50 years, but their relationships to Cambrian forms are quite obscure."—Wikipedia (emphasis mine)

[Karel]

Update: Okay, a little further research reveals that bacteria do belong to a certain subset of fauna called "infauna," but as I said these are nothing even remotely resembling the multicellular species appearing in the early Cambrian period.

Here's an interesting quote:

"Aside from a few enigmatic forms that may or may not represent animals, all modern animal phyla with any fossil record to speak of (except bryozoans) appear to have representatives in the Cambrian, and of these most except sponges seem to have originated just after or just before the start of the period. [. . .] Fairly extensive Precambrian Ediacaran faunas have been identified in the past 50 years, but their relationships to Cambrian forms are quite obscure."—Wikipedia (emphasis mine)

Then you propose that basically all animals were created in the Cambrian? I thought we were talking about sea creatures only, but this would suit me better.

Regards,

Karel

[Karel]

[big snip] But please bear in mind, while I question the validity of the dating of those fossil layers, I do not believe the Genesis creative days were literally 24 hours in length either. I view those "days" more in terms of creative periods, each of which spanned many thousands, maybe even millions, of years. [another big snip]

Let us talk about dating methods first, because science relies on them for a big part of the argument. I am not aware of any arguments against the dating of the fossil layers that are not misrepresentations or downright dishonest. Please educate me: what is a real argument against the dating methods used? In all their variety they come up with remarkably consistent dates, something that is really an argument against unreliability.

After we have settled the dating issue, it will be easy to show that the creation sequence in Genesis 1 (which by the way is contradicted in Genesis 2) is not according to the empirical scientific facts.

Regards,

Karel

[Rob]

Then you propose that basically all animals were created in the Cambrian?

Apparently the majority, if not all, were. The sequence of events in the Genesis account implies that man (including woman) was the final act of creation on the sixth "day." How far removed in time that took place from the other creations no one knows and the Bible does not say. For that matter we don't have any idea how much time elapsed between Adam's creation and Eve's.

I know you prefer to view the account of Adam and Eve's creation as a sort of "non-factual truth," but I do not. When the Bible says that Enoch was the seventh one in line from Adam (Jude 14), then I believe that is what it means (counting Adam as #1, otherwise the sixth). In fact, I accept all the genealogical information presented in the Pentateuch and the rest of the Bible as factual.

I believe it is a fact of history that God sent Moses to stand before Pharaoh and demand the release of the Israelites. And I believe God sent the ten plagues as described when Pharaoh refused, and that God drowned the entire Egyptian army, including Pharaoh, in the Red Sea. I believe that Moses and Aaron were directly descended from Jacob's son Levi, that Jacob was the grandson of Abraham, that Abraham was ten generations removed from Shem, son of Noah, that Noah was eight generations removed from Seth, son of Adam, and that Adam was created by God as the first human. If not, then, as I have questioned before, at what point in the genealogy does fiction become fact?

I believe these things because I believe Jesus is the Son of God, the promised Messiah, and that he believed and taught them too. I don't see how it is possible to be a Christian in the absolute sense of the word and not believe those things are factual. I understand how one could reason it to be so, but my personal opinion is that one would have to follow "cunningly devised fables" (to borrow a phrase from Peter (2 Pet. 1:16)) in order to believe so. Jesus said, "Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God," (Matt. 4:4) and I believe that. And I accept the principle stated by Paul at Romans 3:4: "Let God be found true though every human being is false and a liar."—Amplified Bible

I guess this is where you and I part ways, Karel, because I know you don't accept as factual the biblical account of Adam and Eve's creation or of the Noachian flood. I'm left to wonder what historical accounts in the Bible you do believe are true. I guess you probably doubt the Israelites were ever really slaves in Egypt. I wonder whether you believe they were held in Babylonian captivity for 70 years, or whether one angel slew 185,000 Assyrian soldiers in one night when Hezekiah was King of Judah, or whether the account of the walls of Jericho falling ever really happened the way it is described in Joshua chapter 6.

All that having been said, I come back to the question of evolution, the Cambrian stratum and Mr. Darwin, who wrote: "If numerous species, belonging to the same genera or families, have really started into life at once, the fact would be fatal to the theory of evolution through natural selection,"(Charles Darwin) and that is what the fossil record shows, regardless of the rationalizations by Mr. Darwin following the above quote as well as similar rationalizations by enthusiasts for the theory since then.

[Karel]

As I said, let us settle the reliability of the various dating methods first. It is easy to be objective about the dating stuff, no problems here about different sets of beliefs. I propose to accept the general validity of the dating methods currently in use by science. They have been studied in detail, the problems have been worked out, and they all, when applicable, give consistent results. Do you agree? If not, why not?

After that, we can consider which sequence of events we should use for the creation, Genesis 1 or Genesis 2.

I have already said that scientists currently have no satisfactory explanation for the Cambrian explosion. Perhaps that is why you return to the issue. I do not see how this of itself supports the biblical narratives of the creation, when the two (contradicting) stories from Genesis are both flatly contradicted by the empirical scientific evidence. I would say that "don't know" is less negative than "not so". So again, let us get the dating straight first.

Regards,

Karel

[Rob]

It is easy to be objective about the dating stuff [. . .]

Is it? Which method do you consider most reliable? Potassium-argon?

Before we get off on the dating tangent, I will admit that I have never engaged in a deep study of it and may be ill-prepared to argue it effectively, but is it not true that the various methods are less accurate in dating sedimentary formations vs. igneous? And is it not true that dates arrived at must assume no presence of "daughter elements" in the original mass? So that if you find a 1-ton mass of lead and uranium in which half of the molecules are lead and the other half uranium, the conclusion that it is 4.5 billion years old (based on the 4.5 billion-year half life of uranium) assumes there was no lead present at the beginning?

I'm much more interested in your reasons for your insistence that the events stated in Genesis chapter 2 must be in chronological order rather than in order of topical importance.

[Karel]

Is it? Which method do you consider most reliable? Potassium-argon?

Before we get off on the dating tangent, I will admit that I have never engaged in a deep study of it and may be ill-prepared to argue it effectively, but is it not true that the various methods are less accurate in dating sedimentary formations vs. igneous? And is it not true that dates arrived at must assume no presence of "daughter elements" in the original mass? So that if you find a 1-ton mass of lead and uranium in which half of the molecules are lead and the other half uranium, the conclusion that it is 4.5 billion years old (based on the 4.5 billion-year half life of uranium) assumes there was no lead present at the beginning?

I'm much more interested in your reasons for your insistence that the events stated in Genesis chapter 2 must be in chronological order rather than in order of topical importance.

I really mean all dating methods of course, not a single one. But I will follow your wish; let us start on Genesis 1 and 2.

I think the attempt to qualify the order in Genesis 2 as "topical", to the exclusion of chronological, is too artificial to be considered. If Genesis 1 were missing, we would have no reason to consider Genesis 2 not to have been presented in chronological order.

But it is also the basic grammatical structure of Genesis 2:4-25 that resists such an interpretation. The scene for this pericope is set in vss 4-6 and then from vs 7 onward the verb forms change to indicate chronological order. This order is broken in vss 10-14, in the excursus about the rivers of Eden, and this is indicated by different verb forms. The chronological verb forms take over again in 15-23 (disregarding the quote), 24 is another interruption, as is shown by the different verb forms, and 25 finishes this scene as the last link in the chronological chain. In the beginning of Genesis 3 a new scene is laid out, again based on the verb forms.

To ignore the chronological ordering I just outlined means to ignore the basic structure of the text. If the Hebrew language wants to impart a topical ordering, it is perfectly able to do so, and the verb forms in the running text of Genesis 2 are not the way to do so.

It is really rather elementary.

Regards,

Karel

[Lyehopper]

If the Hebrew language wants to impart a topical ordering, it is perfectly able to do so, and the verb forms in the running text of Genesis 2 are not the way to do so.

It is really rather elementary.

Karel, Are you an expert in the Hebrew language too?....

[Karel]

Karel, Are you an expert in the Hebrew language too?....

Well not an expert, but I had expert teachers. You might say that this is so elementary that even I can figure it out on my own, and be certain that I can defend it against any authority. After all, that is what you are supposed to be able to do at an examination...

Regards,

Karel

[skiracer]

I'm enjoying this. I find it informative and stimulating in that I'm hearing of things that I didn't know of especially from Karel I would like it if Karel would give a clearer basic laymen's explanation of the chronological meaning of the Hebrew verb forms that he states changes the meaning of the chronological order of happenings and how they effect the chronological order.

I was also curious about the length of time between the creation of Adam and Eve and their family coming into existence. Does the Bible state that specifically. And if that is the start of earth and mankind as we know it then man just appeared. Doesn't the the scientific explanation really differ with that entirely if you believe that it all started with one cell life forms evolving into more complex life forms until we got where we are at. Does the Bible deal with that at all or does it just say that God created all living things and that was it.

[Tatnic]

I'm enjoying this. I find it informative and stimulating in that I'm hearing of things that I didn't know of especially from Karel I would like it if Karel would give a clearer basic laymen's explanation of the chronological meaning of the Hebrew verb forms that he states changes the meaning of the chronological order of happenings and how they effect the chronological order.

I was also curious about the length of time between the creation of Adam and Eve and their family coming into existence. Does the Bible state that specifically. And if that is the start of earth and mankind as we know it then man just appeared. Doesn't the the scientific explanation really differ with that entirely if you believe that it all started with one cell life forms evolving into more complex life forms until we got where we are at. Does the Bible deal with that at all or does it just say that God created all living things and that was it.

I believe the bible thumpers claim that everything began 4,000 years ago, the sun, the moon, the earth, man, etc. They don't believe in dinosaurs or fossills or carbon dating but they believe that everyone is related to adam and eve..talk about a shallow gene pool. And those frozen little men they find in glaciers...they were planted by God as a practical joke...that guy cracks me up!

Seriously, the bible is the best selling novel of all time...there's a smattering of historic fact but its mostly just fiction and brain-washing. I think the whole religion thing is first and foremost a business, secondly a very feeble and silly attempt at explaning why we're here...who cares? Why waste time trying to figure that out. There's more important things to do. We will never, ever know why or how we were created...maybe we're just a fart from God, who knows? But if there is a God, and he's all powerful, why didn't he bother to populate the moon, venus, mars or the sun? He can do anything he sets his mind to, right? Why earth? We're just an insignificant tiny little spec of dust in the solar system, meaningless. Why did God create the planets? To amuse us? They weren't given much discussion in the bible, right? But they're right there in plain sight. How bout the internet? Seems like something that important would have been mentioned in the bible? Or how bout nuclear weapons? Pretty sophisticated stuff...intelligent design for that matter. How come there's no hint of them in the bible? God too stupid? Its a simple equation God...E=MC^2.