On the reconciliation of scripture to science

[Mikeenders]

How about most?

If you, Roy and beagle pup are logged in with a fourth person and no one else I am willing to concede it reaches 75%

[klaus54]

I don't because I don't find it at odds with real science

Sorry, but that makes no sense.

In order to "reconcile" (this is why I told Jim I don't like that term!) the Bible with (real) science, you would need an UNAMBIGUOUS (translate: no INTERPRETATION NECESSARY!) reading of the text.

BTW, for literal or concordist readings of scripture impinging on natural phenomena, I prefer the term "map". One of those folks tries to "map" the text to something unambiguous in nature.

You may go ahead and claim to have one, but so does Jor, and your "unambiguous" readings of the fludde story are at odds.

Go figure...

[Mikeenders]

Sorry, but that makes no sense.

In order to "reconcile" (this is why I told Jim I don't like that term!) the Bible with (real) science, you would need an UNAMBIGUOUS (translate: no INTERPRETATION NECESSARY!) reading of the text.

My name isn't Jim, I didn't use the word reconcile he did, and pigs will fly before an atheists tells me how scripture is interpreted especially when he is a total nit that doesn't understand that every written and spoken thing is interpreted in the human mind before it is understood.

Go figure...

I already have.Its proving difficult to teach you how to though. Is this like wrestling? Rob tagged you to continue boring me to death?

Yawn....See you guys later. After this level of boredom quite a bit later.

[robrecht]

and your assumption they do so based on a feeling isn't going to be justified or denied until you get into a particular text. Again are you going to get into anything substantive before we all have grown old and died?

I have already told you my view of the text you were discussing, but I don't see a point in debating it with you. You are unpleasant and much too quick to make unsubstantiated accusations of dishonesty. I don't think it is merely an assumption on my part that some people feel a need (or at least have a desire) to reconcile scripture and science.

[robrecht]

So you are going to call me on Adam and Eve huh. You can't just leave well enough alone - can you!

I do struggle a bit with this. At one point I was leaning towards a more metaphorical view. There is a lot there in terms of Adam having double entendre, genesis 1 speaking of God creating 'them' plural, which could mean the single couple we know traditionally, but also could mean mankind as a population. It certainly works better from a scientific standpoint. But it really gets funky theologically. The entire fall becomes a metaphor for a general population trend, and so even though that may be the case, I stick with belief in a singular Adam and Eve, though I don't exclude the possibility of BOTH, that is, a singular Adam and Eve selected out of a population and then returned to that population after the time in the Garden and the Fall itself.

Yes, a single breeding pair is not supported by the evidence. But - a single source for the current population of mankind is (the mitochondrial Eve). So while this is pure speculation, it is possible the Adam and Eve of scripture are in fact the father and mother of all mankind, a single pair of ancient humans from whom all the living are descended from, and from whom we inherit some key piece that decides the fundamental aspect that the Bible calls the 'fall'. These two would also in their time part of a broader population.

Now selecting the right man and women from such a population would be in fact impossible for us, it is not impossible for God.

Yes. Glenn looks for evidence the ancient hominids had more of the characteristics that make us human than current evidence might support.

Yes, I am aware of this - though I'm not sure it necessarily undoes the idea of a singular Adam and Eve as I tend to postulate it.

Understood, and I know about this. My postulate for Adam and Eve as a singular pair would be after that fusion point. I've sometimes wondered if that fusion point might have been Adam and Eve.

In that sense I would agree with you. Unless their special creation was more of a micro step from an existing species. It is clear that at least at some high level of granularity there is a progression of populations to humanity. So while I retain a view of a singular Adam and Eve that are in some sense the father and mother of mankind, I don't have the capacity to fully explain that belief scientifically.

That begs the question - then how can I consider the scripture reconciled with science? If you may remember, I have had several discussions with YEC's over the difference between a claimed miracle science proves did not happen, and a miracle consistent with the existing evidence. So my goal with Biblical reconciliation with science is not to subject Biblical claims to what is possible naturally or what can be shown beyond a reasonable doubt to be true with science. That is unreasonable, because much in the Bible pertains to one time miraculous events that can't be explained scientifically. So my goal with Biblical reconciliation is to weed out those possible turns of interpretation that are shown to simply not have happened by the evidence itself. It goes back to that oft used quote of Augustine along the lines of Genesis having mny possible interpretations and a warning we need to avoid picking interpretations that are obviously contrary to what is known about the creation itself.

Source: Augustine (from wikipedia)

With the scriptures it is a matter of treating about the faith. For that reason, as I have noted repeatedly, if anyone, not understanding the mode of divine eloquence, should find something about these matters [about the physical universe] in our books, or hear of the same from those books, of such a kind that it seems to be at variance with the perceptions of his own rational faculties, let him believe that these other things are in no way necessary to the admonitions or accounts or predictions of the scriptures. In short, it must be said that our authors knew the truth about the nature of the skies, but it was not the intention of the Spirit of God, who spoke through them, to teach men anything that would not be of use to them for their salvation.

© Copyright Original Source

I look forward to our continuation of this thread of thought - if you have more to say. I know Collins of biologos takes a fully metaphorical view. But a pope not too long ago required belief in a literal Adam and Eve (I remember Sylas lamenting he'd done that too ...) So it's not a trivial problem, and to this point mostly as a matter of conscience I've stayed on the 'they were a literal couple' side of the argument.

Jim

Are you Catholic? Is that why you mention the pope?

[HMS_Beagle]

I don't because I don't find it at odds with real science

That's only because you're almost 100% ignorant about real science.

[oxmixmudd]

Are you Catholic? Is that why you mention the pope?

Not Catholic, but not anti-Catholic either. I mention the Pope because the Catholic church is, compared to many Christian denominations, 'friendly' to the Theory of evolution. And yet, even there the difficulty of reconciling the doctrines of original sin and the fall with a population vs a single individual resulted in a declaration that one needs to believe in a singular, specially created Adam, the idea of Adam as a allegory for all mankind at a certain time was rejected, at least by that pope.

Jim

[robrecht]

Not Catholic, but not anti-Catholic either. I mention the Pope because the Catholic church is, compared to many Christian denominations, 'friendly' to the Theory of evolution. And yet, even there the difficulty of reconciling the doctrines of original sin and the fall with a population vs a single individual resulted in a declaration that one needs to believe in a singular, specially created Adam, the idea of Adam as a allegory for all mankind at a certain time was rejected, at least by that pope.

Jim

Yes, the Catholic tradition has generally been open to the findings of science and reason in general. That is one of the things I like about Catholicism.

[Mikeenders]

I have already told you my view of the text you were discussing, but I don't see a point in debating it with you. You are unpleasant and much too quick to make unsubstantiated accusations of dishonesty. I don't think it is merely an assumption on my part that some people feel a need (or at least have a desire) to reconcile scripture and science.

I don't really care about your crapola about unsubstianted charges. the world is filled with dishonest people who never admit to their dishonesty so you are just one more (especially on this board)... ho hum. even since I laid out why you had been dishonest you added even more to it by commenting on the text through the articles you referenced. So you have not left the subject as you alleged.

As for all the other nonsense above - People have various reasons for seeing passages BASED ON THE PASSAGES themselves and you pretty much have refused to get into any particular passage outside of the one discussed which you sometimes go into before playing a game of doge ball when it suits - oh I am not discussing that but this is interesting oh but ummmm I am not discussing that.

You are a total waste of time Rob. You want to keep thing general and not specific and substantive to any text so you can pontificate.amuse yourself that you are getting into motivations and just generally waste time. NO christian I know or who I have read has the same reason for interpreting all passages the way they do. its entirely dependent on the passage so what they feel or think or according to you need isn't going to be determined without getting into texts,

Frankly I think the reason you are so afraid to get into any text is because you're afraid to be wrong again as you were about your proof text for the flood being global but will of course not expect you to admit it because you can't even admit when you are in a discussion of a subject when umm you are. So after asking you when you are going to get into any specifics or anything substantial and you refusal to answer over and over and over again the answer is apparent - never because you are not up for it.

So let me give you what you so deeply crave - the last word because for now I'm done with you wasting my time at least. You can babble on.

[robrecht]

I don't really care about your crapola about unsubstianted charges. the world is filled with dishonest people who never admit to their dishonesty so you are just one more (especially on this board)... ho hum. even since I laid out why you had been dishonest you added even more to it by commenting on the text through the articles you referenced. So you have not left the subject as you alleged.

As for all the other nonsense above - People have various reasons for seeing passages BASED ON THE PASSAGES themselves and you pretty much have refused to get into any particular passage outside of the one discussed which you sometimes go into before playing a game of doge ball when it suits - oh I am not discussing that but this is interesting oh but ummmm I am not discussing that.

You are a total waste of time Rob. You want to keep thing general and not specific and substantive to any text so you can pontificate.amuse yourself that you are getting into motivations and just generally waste time. NO christian I know or who I have read has the same reason for interpreting all passages the way they do. its entirely dependent on the passage so what they feel or think or according to you need isn't going to be determined without getting into texts,

Frankly I think the reason you are so afraid to get into any text is because you're afraid to be wrong again as you were about your proof text for the flood being global but will of course not expect you to admit it because you can't even admit when you are in a discussion of a subject when umm you are. So after asking you when you are going to get into any specifics or anything substantial and you refusal to answer over and over and over again the answer is apparent - never because you are not up for it.

So let me give you what you so deeply crave - the last word because for now I'm done with you wasting my time at least. You can babble on.

You really should care about not making unsubstantiated accusations of dishonesty. It is very unpleasant to try to have a conversation with you.

[Roy]

Emphasis mine:

spin..... spin........ spin.......You attempted to set up a condition "if they want to prove"sets up the condition of what they should do if they want to prove. I don't care how long you wish to be dishonest about it - that s not debatable. Thats an attempt to set up a condition and citing references we should look at and what we should rebut and your condition of if we want to prove according to you puts you right in the discussion you said you were out of hours ago.

What robrecht actually said:

Here are some articles that Jorge and Mikeenders can refute if they want to prove that one or the other approach is correct:

"if they want to prove" actually sets up a condition of what they could do, not necessarily what they should do.

[shunyadragon]

I don't because I don't find it at odds with real science

Odd! What is your conception of real science?

[shunyadragon]

I don't because I don't find it at odds with real science

I thought I would add some points here to clarify the view of REAL Science. A 1997 Pew Research Center poll indicated that 97% of all scientist support evolution, ~8-10% of the 97% supported Theistic Evolution.

Please, clarify what you mean by real science.

[klaus54]

My name isn't Jim, I didn't use the word reconcile he did, and pigs will fly before an atheists tells me how scripture is interpreted especially when he is a total nit that doesn't understand that every written and spoken thing is interpreted in the human mind before it is understood.



I already have.Its proving difficult to teach you how to though. Is this like wrestling? Rob tagged you to continue boring me to death?

Yawn....See you guys later. After this level of boredom quite a bit later.

Well, if Balaam can be instructed by an Ass, a cement-headed Fundy like you can be instructed by an agnostic (not "atheist", you Foole.)

So why don't you and Jor and your ilk ponder what "literal" means and why, e.g., the Stink 'n Jor team has an internal conflict about the "literal" extent of Ye Greate Fludde?

To wit, which of you two dopes is the "most" literal?

[Duragizer]

Well, if Balaam can be instructed by an Ass, a cement-headed Fundy like you can be instructed by an agnostic (not "atheist", you Foole.)

Ah, but agnostics are all just closeted atheists, don'tcha know? That's what Jorge preaches, and if it's a good enough argument for Clucky, it's good enough for Stinky.