The evidence for evolution
Discussion
ATG said:
Why do you think that?
Because it was the recording of the oral tradition of primitive people taking a best guess at the origins of the world. There are still primitive peoples who believe in the literal truth of their creation myths, and I see no reason to think Bronze age goat herders were any more sophisticated than that.otolith said:
Because it was the recording of the oral tradition of primitive people taking a best guess at the origins of the world. There are still primitive peoples who believe in the literal truth of their creation myths, and I see no reason to think Bronze age goat herders were any more sophisticated than that.
The first few verses of Genesis are written in a different style to the rest of the book. Many Biblical scholars think they may have been written by a different person. It is completely possible that this section was intended to set the scene and is not intended to be taken literally, just like the parables of Jesus for example. This interpretation renders all argument over evolution pointless.The rest of Genesis takes the form of a history. The authors describe the location of Eden as a real place and repeatedly emphasise the family lineage. This makes no sense at all if the intention was to talk about God and also makes little sense when read from a modern Western point of view. However from an ancient tribal point of view this is exactly how a real history would be recorded. The first people are the tribal founders, the first garden (or sheltered place) is the first settlement. Various myths and traditions are attributed to something that the ancestors did. The family line is then emphasised.
Simpo Two said:
Perhaps this thread could be moved to 'Bible Studies'?
Perhaps I should make it clear what science is not:Dismissing texts you have not read but have made incorrect assumptions about
Being rube about other people's viewpoints
Pretending that the above makes you right
Dismissing anything associated with something you disagree without considering it on its own merits
Assuming that any text not written from your cultural viewpoint must be completely false
Claiming that historical events did not happen because eyewitness accounts describe them from a different cultural viewpoint
Being unwilling to consider different approaches to time based data
Being unwilling to consider different approaches to quantity based data
You don't have to look through many PH threads on this topic before you come up against "scientists" making comments on the above lines. As someone who makes their living from applied science I find this a bit odd. I have never argued for religion, I have frequently argued that the Bible stands as a historical document and deserves to be studied due its immense influence on culture, , art, history, politics and philosophy over the centuries since it was written. I have also frequently pointed out that certain interpretations resolve practical objections to its historicity and enable events to be fitted into a reasonable timeline. In addition I have pointed out that some interpretations give links to key events in other fields such as vulcanology or metrology.
Bible studies are required for scientists if scientists keep making errors in their scientific appraisal of the Bible.
If you don't get that then your approach to, and true understanding of, science still needs some work.
Of course it's a historical document, it's a record of things people used to believe, some of which has a basis in historical fact, some of which is entirely myth. If you want to reinterpret bits of it as metaphor - well, it's a piece of literature, go for it - but historically it has been understood to be literal truth, and still is by many Christians.
I think once you get to the point of "well obviously God, Jesus's divinity, virgin birth and redirection* were always meant to be understood metaphorically" you're probably done with the revisionism.
* "Resurrection". Damn you autocorrect.
I think once you get to the point of "well obviously God, Jesus's divinity, virgin birth and redirection* were always meant to be understood metaphorically" you're probably done with the revisionism.
* "Resurrection". Damn you autocorrect.
Edited by otolith on Friday 21st August 10:06
Dr Jekyll said:
In the quotations thread I included:
"I don't need to go to a Star Trek convention to know that Captain Kirk isn't real."
Cough "I don't need to go to a Star Trek convention to know that Captain Kirk isn't real."
Are you sure?
cymtriks said:
Being rube about other people's viewpoints
It's perfectly acceptable to be rude about other peoples viewpoints - it's the people themselves you should not be rude about.If you tell me Sleeping Beauty was a real person I'm entitled to be rude about that viewpoint as it's preposterous.
As for the rest of your post well a great man once said about the bible and religion in general "What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence."
Amen.
cymtriks said:
The first few verses of Genesis are written in a different style to the rest of the book. Many Biblical scholars think they may have been written by a different person. It is completely possible that this section was intended to set the scene and is not intended to be taken literally, just like the parables of Jesus for example. This interpretation renders all argument over evolution pointless.
The rest of Genesis takes the form of a history. The authors describe the location of Eden as a real place and repeatedly emphasise the family lineage. This makes no sense at all if the intention was to talk about God and also makes little sense when read from a modern Western point of view. However from an ancient tribal point of view this is exactly how a real history would be recorded. The first people are the tribal founders, the first garden (or sheltered place) is the first settlement. Various myths and traditions are attributed to something that the ancestors did. The family line is then emphasised.
The problem with taking a version of 'the' bible as somehow defining something is patently absurd. The KJ is a translation of a translation of an interpretation. And more. There have been numerous 'filters' working through the ages as well, even before Nicea, and that was a biggy.The rest of Genesis takes the form of a history. The authors describe the location of Eden as a real place and repeatedly emphasise the family lineage. This makes no sense at all if the intention was to talk about God and also makes little sense when read from a modern Western point of view. However from an ancient tribal point of view this is exactly how a real history would be recorded. The first people are the tribal founders, the first garden (or sheltered place) is the first settlement. Various myths and traditions are attributed to something that the ancestors did. The family line is then emphasised.
The idea that the authors of various passages in various bibles were interpreting natural phenomena is a guess. If we look at mormonism, scientology and other similar religions where the genesis is known, it seems there is no desire to explain, merely exploit. Why should those who started religions in the past have different motivation? Even Constantine designed christianity for the purposes of control. It was at Nicea that the contrary decision to include the old testament was taken. Bad move I reckon.
The KJ bible is an historical document, in the same way Rural Rides, and Pride and Prejudice are, and should be treated as such. The western catholic church knew what it was doing when it tried to stop their congregations, not to mention the majority of their vicars, from being able to read the thing.
Origin of Species - speciation - would have been accepted without a murmur, in the same way Principia was, had it not been for religion. There can be no argument against either. One can argue about detail, hardly surprising as DNA hadn't been invented on publication, and in the same way point out that Newton was corrected by Einstein, but both works were of genius, their bases sound.
Creationism shows the silliness of faith in a book as it is the logical conclusion of the belief that it is the inspired word of a god. Take that away, as we surely must with evolution, and the whole idea collapses. It becomes stories written by the Jane Austins of their time.
I've read the bible - my wife taught bible studies in a local church for the under 16s, and I worked with her on lessons. It is a curate's egg: good stuff and bad stuff. And absolutely horrendous stuff. And basically myth.
Dr Jekyll said:
In the quotations thread I included:
"I don't need to go to a Star Trek convention to know that Captain Kirk isn't real."
There you go again."I don't need to go to a Star Trek convention to know that Captain Kirk isn't real."
The vast bulk of the Bible is history as seen by a bronze age tribe. There is no reason to doubt its authenticity when read like this. Very little of the text is about God and most of that is retrospective justification along the lines of "these events happened because God wanted them to happen / was pleased / was displeased" This is exactly how the authors saw their world and is no reason to doubt the events described.
Dismissing an entire ancient text because the author mentions God is akin to a scientist dismissing a well established theory because an undergraduate got a few outlying results in a lab practice experiment.
Dawkins said:
As for the rest of your post well a great man once said about the bible and religion in general "What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence."
He couldn't be that great if he made such silly statements.Most of great achievements in science and technology started out exactly like that, someone said "What if..." or "why does that..". At that point the same argument could be applied to them. No evidence, dismiss instantly.
Exactly what do you think I've asserted without evidence?
Just to remind you:
The Bible stands as a historical document and deserves to be studied due its immense influence on culture, art, history, politics and philosophy over the centuries since it was written.
Some interpretations give links to key historical events in other fields such as volcanology or metrology.
Bible studies are required for scientists if scientists keep making errors in their scientific appraisal of the Bible.
If you don't get that then your approach to, and true understanding of, science still needs some work.
Derek Smith said:
The problem with taking a version of 'the' bible as somehow defining something is patently absurd. The KJ is a translation of a translation of an interpretation. And more. There have been numerous 'filters' working through the ages as well, even before Nicea, and that was a biggy.
There are sources dating back before Nicea that show most the pre Nicea Bible was the same as the post Nicea version. KJ was a good attempt for the time but is regarded as a pretty poor translation by modern standards.Derek Smith said:
The idea that the authors of various passages in various bibles were interpreting natural phenomena is a guess.
It's a guess that fits very well though. I can't see why it would be objectionable to anyone. If faithful it removes objections that events couldn't have happened. If scientific it removes objections that events were supernatural.Derek Smith said:
If we look at mormonism, scientology and other similar religions where the genesis is known, it seems there is no desire to explain, merely exploit. Why should those who started religions in the past have different motivation? Even Constantine designed christianity for the purposes of control. It was at Nicea that the contrary decision to include the old testament was taken. Bad move I reckon.
If you were going to come up with a text to promote God would you come up with all the stuff in the old testament? If you wanted to exploit people why concentrate on a bunch of nomadic shepherds for two thousand years? It makes more sense that later faith founders saw what had happened to established faiths and wanted a piece of the action.Derek Smith said:
The KJ bible is an historical document, in the same way Rural Rides, and Pride and Prejudice are, and should be treated as such. The western catholic church knew what it was doing when it tried to stop their congregations, not to mention the majority of their vicars, from being able to read the thing.
Yes, KJ is. However I cannot see why you would say that about the original text. It makes more sense as an eyewitness account of bronze age life than it does as anything else. If you mean the religious interpretation and exploitation of that same text then you have a good point.Derek Smith said:
Origin of Species - speciation - would have been accepted without a murmur, in the same way Principia was, had it not been for religion. There can be no argument against either. One can argue about detail, hardly surprising as DNA hadn't been invented on publication, and in the same way point out that Newton was corrected by Einstein, but both works were of genius, their bases sound.
Creationism shows the silliness of faith in a book as it is the logical conclusion of the belief that it is the inspired word of a god. Take that away, as we surely must with evolution, and the whole idea collapses.
It becomes stories written by the Jane Austins of their time.
I've read the bible - my wife taught bible studies in a local church for the under 16s, and I worked with her on lessons. It is a curate's egg: good stuff and bad stuff. And absolutely horrendous stuff. And basically myth.
Yes OoS probably would have been. However there are plenty of examples of currently accepted scientific theories that were rejected out of hand by scientists many times. It isn't a behaviour unique to religion.Creationism shows the silliness of faith in a book as it is the logical conclusion of the belief that it is the inspired word of a god. Take that away, as we surely must with evolution, and the whole idea collapses.
It becomes stories written by the Jane Austins of their time.
I've read the bible - my wife taught bible studies in a local church for the under 16s, and I worked with her on lessons. It is a curate's egg: good stuff and bad stuff. And absolutely horrendous stuff. And basically myth.
Only the faith doctrine built upon the accounts collapses, not the accounts themselves.
cymtriks said:
Yes OoS probably would have been. However there are plenty of examples of currently accepted scientific theories that were rejected out of hand by scientists many times. It isn't a behaviour unique to religion.
Only the faith doctrine built upon the accounts collapses, not the accounts themselves.
I've declined to quote it all in the interests of space.Only the faith doctrine built upon the accounts collapses, not the accounts themselves.
A couple of points, especially about Nicea. There were many, perhaps dozens, of gospels pre the decision to make it into a state religion. There were also dozens of christian sects - remember that Jesus was trying to modify the jewish religion, in the same way as Luther didn't want to invent a new religion but modify the current one. The sects continued to an extent after Nicea but a period of persecution soon put paid to that. A number of discarded gospels have since come to light, some in my lifetime.
You've lost me in your argument: If you were going to come up with a text to promote God would you come up with all the stuff in the old testament?
One could ask the same about scientology and mormonism. It seems to support my argument.
The guess, as we both agree, that genesis was an attempt to explain natural phenomenon is received wisdom and has not been challenged. It fits as well as my suggestion that it is an attempt to exploit. I've used current examples, but there are more through the written ages.
The last bit, which I have quoted, is science in action. The rejected theories that are now accepted will, of course, be rejected in the future as new discoveries give us new ways to interpret what we see around us.
You say that science only destroys the faith bit of the bible. Are you suggesting that, like many religionists, we should pick and choose what we believe from the bible? Is, for instance, the exodus still standing despite a singular lack of any evidence for it? What about the slavery of the Jews? What about the destruction of the cities of the plains?
I've had an interest in history for a considerable number of years and many of the books I bought in the 60s have been proved wrong in their conclusions. In January 2014 there were half a dozen books on WWI reviewed in The Times (I think). Some authors directly contradicted others. Most authors were erudite professors in well respected educational institutions but they could not all be right. They had their own reasons for writing what they did.
Why should it have been any different back in pre-history? The many authors of Genesis wrote what they did either as the inspired word of their god, or more likely gods, or for their own reasons. Take away faith and you have the latter.
Science explains. The bible is not science. It is not early science. It is stories. Most of those stories have no supporting evidence and many can be refuted on what has been discovered. The ark is myth, no matter how it is twisted by those who try and make it fit scientific reality. So why, if people made up these stories to fit their own purposes, should we believe that there was any difference in motive when it came to the rest?
Science will always be wrong. Darwin had no concept of DNA so could not explain the mechanics of evolution. The early explanation of DNA in its effects on inheritance of features was wrong. There will be further developments over the years to come. All science can hope to do is restrict the margins of error. The bible has no place in this.
The bible does little more than open a window on how people of the time behaved. As I said, Pride and Prejudice, but even more wordy.
cymtriks said:
Dawkins said:
As for the rest of your post well a great man once said about the bible and religion in general "What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence."
He couldn't be that great if he made such silly statements.Most of great achievements in science and technology started out exactly like that, someone said "What if..." or "why does that..". At that point the same argument could be applied to them. No evidence, dismiss instantly.
That's how science works. It's because "what if" isn't good enough and is dismissed, that scientists work to convert "what if" into "this is how". That process can take decades.
Edited by TwigtheWonderkid on Sunday 6th September 09:06
TwigtheWonderkid said:
cymtriks said:
Hitchens said:
As for the rest of your post well a great man once said about the bible and religion in general "What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence."
He couldn't be that great if he made such silly statements.Most of great achievements in science and technology started out exactly like that, someone said "What if..." or "why does that..". At that point the same argument could be applied to them. No evidence, dismiss instantly.
That's how science works. It's because "what if" isn't good enough and is dismissed, that scientists work to convert "what if" into "this is how". That process can take decades.
The statement stands whatever the challenge. The argument is that if person A states something is true then person B is not required to adduce evidence to deny the claim. To have it otherwise would be unfair. All the work would fall on the person not making the claim.
The only thing to refute is any such claim is the evidence in support of it. ‘I believe’ is irrefutable. However, that’s not an argument, merely a statement of belief. It puts no obligation on the unbeliever when rejecting the claim.
It is not specific to religion as such. It is against all other unevidenced claims.
Dr Jekyll said:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lIEoO5KdPvg
Contains REALLY interesting fact about Whales and Hippos.
Nice lil vid. I read the Science of Discworld year ago, and it touches on evolution and stuff. Elephants had an ancestor that used to live in the sea, which itself had an ancestor that used to live on land.Contains REALLY interesting fact about Whales and Hippos.
otolith said:
Because it was the recording of the oral tradition of primitive people taking a best guess at the origins of the world. There are still primitive peoples who believe in the literal truth of their creation myths, and I see no reason to think Bronze age goat herders were any more sophisticated than that.
I'm not sure how primitive they were. My own belief is that the people who helped make up the early Judiac religion were the runaway/cast out followers of Akenaten who failed in Egypt (all that stuff about Ramases being the propaganda required for a start-up cult). And Egypt and other civilisations prior to that were able to built some amazing things. We don't really know how their stories fitted into their science.Gassing Station | Science! | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff