David,

Thank you for one of the most fascinating pieces I've read on biblical scholarship. The history of belief it outlines rings far more true in its simplicity than most of what people say and write about the Bible. There are many valuable things we could learn from your story.

To think that it all started with a bit of harmless literary fun, and that the lack of humour of later authority-figures ossified the notion into sterile stupidity!

Power hates play. It's a fundamental conflict that forms the human condition and is central in the current furore about science, religion, God and atheism.

Thanks again.

what is more amazing than people taking the Scriptures literally is the total inability of anyone to come up with anything more plausible for our origins. While pseudo scientist preach their dogmas there are many scientist who admit to the myth of the big bang and evolution stories. The blind faith of those denying the biblical account is certainly less intelligent than the faith of those who can see the obvious (we have been created thus requiring a Creator. Thousands of years after the Scriptures were written we see millions still with a reasoned faith in their Creator. Many honest scientist can come to no other conclusion. On the other hand we have reprint 5000 from the evolutionist who have to ignore the fact that they have to and will have to continue to change their story. Be sure the next 'scientific breakthrough' in this area will produce no more true scientific evidence as has the last 50000.

Runner:

What's it like in that evidence-free zone you live in? How many of the 5000 -- or is it 50000? -- papers on evolution have you actually read and understood? Would you like to explain what is wrong with the theory of evolution? You could start by explaining the theory so we can check whether you have got it right. Here's a clue: it doesn't say that fish give birth to baby monkeys. Let's get that sorted out and we can go on from there.

Thank you for an interesting insight into the possible background of the Genesis story. It is fascinating how these ideas were developed, borrowed and blended in ancient cultures. I was not aware of these possible origins of Eve’s name, though the Hebrew Scriptures themselves are also full of puns and name plays – Adam, whose creation described in Genesis 2 is basically an animated mud pie, has a name derived from the Hebrew “adama” meaning mud or dust. Adam can also be used as a generic term for mankind as well as the proper name of an individual – emphasising that Adam stands as a representative human.

I agree with the author, knowing a little of the context and origins of these texts add to our understanding and appreciation

He is exactly write on his insistence that we can only even begin to understand the Bible when we fully consider the then existing cultural matrix or vast cultural reservoir of ancient beliefs and mythologies, in which it appeared.

Every last bit of it was an extension of and a reworking of what came before.

How could it be otherwise?

All religions, without exception, are always only a partial description of man, both male and female.

If you believe the Bible as either History,or anything factual,you may as well believe that Hans Christian Anderson wrote the definitive history of Scandinavia.
Apart from Fundys and Runner of course

Oh dear, Runner. Do get that education, won't you?

Which scriptures? Yours? Hubbards? Mahommed? Jewish? Mumbo-Jumbo god of the Congo? The hindu ones?

Go take on people who have wasted decades studying scripture, *they* will tell you you are ignorant.

Reality does not support your position either.

You are not qualified or experienced to judge the work of your clear betters, and I suggest a respectful silence if you are ever privileged to tour my workplace.

Your parody of the worst of christianity is very effective at discrediting fundies. Keep it up!

Rusty

John Ryan <"If you believe the Bible as either History,or anything factual,you may as well believe that Hans Christian Anderson wrote the definitive history of Scandinavia.">

Whether referring to Biblical text or to Hans Christian Anderson, literal meaning is one thing and spiritual meaning another. Like, The Emperor's New Clothes and The Ugly Duckling are readable stories just as they are. They also have another level of meaning and value that we don't dismiss just because we can't find any evidence that some dignitary somewhere was a flasher. We can't know for a FACT that some swan egg got mixed up with a duck's.

In Biblical times the mass of people were illiterate; stories passed down from one generation to another had to be memorable so that they could be told and retold and the essential message of the time passed on.

Rather than dismiss the Bible because this and that fact don't fit neatly (although I think that aspect also lends it authenticity - like the different reports that can be gather, I think there is more value in having a general understanding of the historical context while remaining open to spiritual understanding.

Edit:

My apologies. Don't know how I managed to delete some of the last para.

Rather than dismiss the Bible because this and that fact don't fit neatly (although I think that aspect also lends it authenticity - like the different reports that can be gathered from six different witnesses of a minor car collision), I think there is more value in having a general understanding of the historical context while remaining open to spiritual understanding, than in dismissing the whole lot.

So, runner -

You believe that God made Eve from Adam's rib, and all of us are descended from them, yes?

I just want to read you saying it.

"I came upon this possible Sumerian background for the explanation of the Biblical "rib" story quite independently in 1945, but it had already been suggested thirty years earlier by the eminent French cuneiformist Pere Scheil, as the American Orientalist William Albright, who edited my publication, pointed out to me - which makes it all the more likely to be true."
Congratulations DF on your antiquity and precocious learning; assuming you were not a child prodigy, you're around 90.
I happen to be reading Derrida, whose concept of "citation" seems apt. Why does Scheil's endorsement make "it all the more likely to be true"? Was your (and his) scholarship somehow more objective, that is independent of the discourses then at play, than other popular versions? Is there really any debate about the validity of the traditional account? Parabolic nonsense surely?
Your version of events is surely no more than one of several popular discourses on an ancient myth. It has the flavour of nostalgia about it, which should always be savoured, but what is your point, apart from that ancient logic is for pedants and passe?

A fascinating article. It only goes further to prove the theory that the Bible, at best, is a collection of old wive's tales, ancient stories and superstitions passed down and embellished through the ages.

I wonder why woman was not said to have been 'made' first? Could it be that all the authors of this rubbish were men? After all, aren't women the givers of life?

By the many and varied authors claiming that it is all the word of their God, one wonders why this God decided to speak only to them, after our world, and we humans, had already been in existence for so many thousands of years?

How did all their ancestors live in such a Godless world before the apparent son of God came among us and saved the Christian souls?

Oh yes, that's right. All those that lived before the Bible's times must now be burning in the fires of hell.....right?

Dear runner,

It takes blind faith to believe the Bible account. Part of the job of the scientist is to follow the evidence whatever it indicates. An honest scientist rejects previous theory if new evidence shows it not to be valid and rejects experimental evidence if it is not reproducible. Evolution is simply fact. The fossil record shows that as species have been replaced by other species through time, and experiments with fruit flies and other organisms with short life spans have shown evolution happening within human life spans. The theory suggests mechanisms by which this can happen.

Dear Pynchme,

I agree that the Bible can have spiritual meaning even though much of the material is legendary or inaccurate. I don't agree that the inaccuracies lend it authenticity.

Dear Mitchell,

Look at the article again. The words in Italics are quotations. The paragraph you cited is part of the Kramer quotation. Actually I am old enough to have read Scheil's work in 1945 as I was 20 at the time, but I didn't. Kramer did. My picture in the article was taken about 1928.

My point was "To study any work of literature one should be aware of the cultural matrix in which that work was produced." I stated that point in the second paragraph of my article. The Bible is no exception.

Dear crabsy, Rhian, Ho Hum and suzeonline,

Thanks for your appreciation.

Dear David,
I do apologise--I bet Derrida never glossed and misinterpreted anyone's prose like that!
The horsehair shirt for me today.

Suzeonline

<<<< How did all their ancestors live in such a Godless world before the apparent son of God came among us and saved the Christian souls?

Oh yes, that's right. All those that lived before the Bible's times must now be burning in the fires of hell.....right? >>>>

I have pondered the same conundrum myself - that until the 'creation' of Christianity, humans could not have been 'saved' by Jesus, therefore, they must've been consigned to the pits of hell.

Or, maybe the Jews are right.

Or, maybe there is no single 'correct' religion.

Which could mean....

.... that religion was created by male humans for male humans.

Severin wrote:

"Or, maybe the Jews are right.

Or, maybe there is no single 'correct' religion."

Jewish belief is that there is no single 'correct' religion.

From "What is a Jew?" by Leo Tolstoy

"As concerns religious toleration, the Jewish faith is not only far from the missionary spirit of converting people of other denominations, but on the contrary the Talmud commands the rabbis to inform and explain to everyone who willingly comes to accept the Jewish religion, all the difficulties involved in its acceptance, and to point out to the would-be proselyte that the righteous of all nations have a share in immortality.

Of such a lofty and ideal religious toleration not even the moralists of the present day can boast."

You know what happens to stories that get passed from person to person, you end up with something entirely different. Women came from a chop; i am having trouble visualizing that let alone believing it.
Hand me down stories; that's probably why someone ended up living in a whale.

Desmond

It is hand-me-down stories, not history books, that shape our culture and values.

Our identity as Australians, for example, is more bound up in the semi-historical national myths surrounding the ANZACs and Ned Kelly that chronological milestones like Federation.

The bible contains some authentic history, but its authors’ purposes were not primarily the transmission of historical (or biological or geophysical) data. It also contains a wide variety of literary forms – allegory, myth, poetry, song, correspondence, narrative etc.

The naive fundamentalists who insist that it’s all factually accurate are a pretty small minority among Australian Christians. They are easy to mock, but they’re not representative.

The author David says;

“To study any work of literature one should be aware of the cultural matrix in which that work was produced. To study the Bible as a work complete in itself while ignoring the cultural matrix in which it was written is not studying the Bible.”

I'm inclined to agree to a point but studying the bible is hardly the only thing one can do with it. What about enjoying it? Revelling in it? Drinking from it? And yes for some clinging to it?

When we sit down to enjoy a good film I'm not sure there are many of us, on the first viewing, switch on the director's narration feature now present on most DVDs. Perhaps the interest might be heightened once we hear from him or her on a second viewing and certainly there will be insights to be gained but I'm not sure the enjoyment level is dramatically enhanced.

Is a deep study of the Bible a necessary component of a deep faith derived and nourished from it? I would argue no. So why then do we seem to insist those who profess such a faith be able to substantiate it with over-arching knowledge of the text and its context?

I'm not laying this entirely at David's feet since besides the preamble and the final paragraph (which reads more like a Ripley's Believe It Or Not) I feel he was quite restrained in the article. However the comments section already contains quite disparaging remarks about those who take their literalism straight up.

I would be concerned if the underlying contention of the piece is that without a thorough study of the context of the biblical books a true understanding of the scriptures can not be obtained. It would smack of ivory tower theology that rightly or wrongly is an anathema to our fundamentalist brethren.

Davidf

You confirm the idiotic notion that evolution is a proven science by claiming that the fossil records endorse your fantasy. Out of the millions of fossils found evolutionist still have to look extremely hard to order to build and produce a story around a transitional form. They really do spend millions on something non existent. The science is about as settled as global warming. As one pollie put it (it is crap). Your claim to evolution being fact is fantasy at best as any honest scientist knows.

Runner, why do you insist on proving that you lack the education to comment on such a topic?

Evolution was well demonstrated by far fewer fossils than we possess today. Every year the earth yields up more. In every case the new ones confirm the case for evolution.

That case is independently and with great resolution supported by DNA sequence analysis, with lesser resulution by ordinary anatomical taxonomy, by observation of current living things and by, at the extreme, the clear fact that organisms exist with heritable change. (your god does not enjoy such existence).

The only way you could arrive at your position is to be willfully ignorant, which is truly contemptible, but possibly the only way to cling to the fragile stories you believe.

As for working hard, well, some of us are good at that. Working hard to understand the nature of life is clearly beyond you. If we were satisfied by garbage, late-night televangelists produce an excess of which you are clearly a customer.

You opinion is worthless on this topic. Go get some references that haven't already been laughed out of the public arena and prove you can read by quoting them. We could do with a laugh. Alternatively, since you probably will not have examined the issue diligently enough to remember any more substantial objections than "pastor don't like it", why don't you trot out some other example besides taxonomy, just to show that you were listening when pastor "exhaustively" debunked evolution for you. (did pastor do the six-week bible study course or the full 18month one, I wonder)

Do try and remember that some of us also passed physics, chemistry, biochemistry, genetics, and anatomy in just our first degree and so you will need to "show working" like other backward students suspected of getting their answers from others.

Rusty

Fascinating stuff.

runner - you didn't answer my question. I'll ask it again.

Do you seriously believe that Eve, the original woman, was fashioned by God from one of Adam's ribs? Further, do you believe that all humans are descended from them?

I wouldn't have thought that they would be difficult questions for a creationist biblical fundy to answer.

CJ Morgan

Your adamic nature points clearly to where you came from. And yes I have no doubt that all humans descended from Adam and Eve. And yes Adam and Eve had children that inter married if that is what you are on about. Do you seriously believe you evolved from a monkey? Do you also believe the aboriginals are less evolved than you as many scientist once believed until it become politcally incorrect.

But what about the rib, runner?

After all, that's the topic.

I mean, if there wasn't the rib bit, there wouldn't be Eve and the whole story would croak.

Dear Rusty and CJ,

Just a little lesson about fundamentalists if I may.

Why do you think they do it, this continual defiance of scientific evidence?

At a very basic level it is about the integrity or foundation of their faith. To allow one crack is to see the lot tumble down. The creationists refer to themselves as 'true' Christians and those who don't hold young earth views aren't deemed to be Christians at all.

The question is who laid down this particular set of foundation stones in the first place?

From Wikipedia

The first formulation of American fundamentalist beliefs can be traced to the Niagara Bible Conference (1878–1897) and, in 1910, to the General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church which distilled these into what became known as the "five fundamentals".
1. Inerrancy of the Scriptures
2. The virgin birth and the deity of Jesus (Isaiah 7:14)
3 The doctrine of substitutionary atonement by God's grace and through human faith (Hebrews 9)
4 The bodily resurrection of Jesus (Matthew 28)
5 The authenticity of Christ's miracles (or, alternatively, his pre-millennial second coming), e.g. healing, deliverance, and second coming.
End quote

In my experience the high turnover in Fundamentalist churches finds most of those who leave do not move on to a toned down version with a more established brand but instead drop away completely. This is understandable when you think once the whole edifice has come tumbling down then it is a big ask to build another. Often though the 'born again' experience has served its purpose and got them through a difficult time in their life.

If someone makes it past the 10 year mark then they are generally a stayer and tend to become even more strident in their views. Most are afraid of the rapid pace of change of the world and of things such as a one world government but the most striking characteristic is a far tighter grip on the 'fundamentals'. Runner is a case in point.

Cont

The Adam and Eve myth is an extract from a much more detailed Jewish folk tale.

Nothing is mentioned about Adam's first wife - Lillith - who was created as Adam's equal but refused to become Adam's servant.

This was God's first mistake (one of many He admits to in the Bible) and so he tries again by using Adam's rib to emphasise the lower status of women.

This abridged version begins the theme of the inferior woman which is perpetuated throughout.

Refreshing to see sane comments outnumber the insane!
The theory that 2000 year old folks with little to no understanding of natural processes were wiser and more in touch with God is a strange one...(At least it is to those of us that were taught to question.)
Funny that evolution came up in discussion: Religion itself has evolved so much in human history with many instances of "convergent evolution". E.g. Extremists of any religious flavour basically end up the same: intolerant, belligerent and most of all, ignorant. The tokenisation and idolatry seen in virtually all religions would have the original prophets rolling in their graves.
I am reminded of the saying: "When someone points at the moon, it is wise to ignore the finger once the moon is seen." Religion can be defined as the process of worshipping the finger whilst ignoring the moon. Scientific knowledge plus meditation / contemplation is the rational alternative.

csteele wrote: "I'm inclined to agree to a point but studying the bible is hardly the only thing one can do with it.

One can also use the Bible as doorstop, flower press or blunt instrument, but the many things one can do was not the article's theme. I asked my father what he would do if he heard the voice of God telling him to sacrifice me. He said he would see a psychiatrist. I felt secure with my father but could no longer believe in the horrible God who tells a father to murder his son. In the New Testament he does the dirty to his own son.

csteele also wrote: "Is a deep study of the Bible a necessary component of a deep faith derived and nourished from it? I would argue no."

I agree. A usual component of a deep faith is either ignorance and/or willful blindness.

Isaiah 7:14 from the KJV: "Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign; Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel."

The above is a mistranslation. In the original Hebrew an almah or young woman will conceive. They do it frequently. However, the Greek version translated almah as parthenos or virgin. The second fundamental is an example of faith depending on ignorance. Better reason and questioning than any kind of faith.

Rhian wrote: The bible contains some authentic history, but its authors’ purposes were not primarily the transmission of historical (or biological or geophysical) data.....The naive fundamentalists who insist that it’s all factually accurate are a pretty small minority among Australian Christians. They are easy to mock, but they’re not representative.

We really don't know the authors' purposes. They may have thought they were transmitting historical (or biological or geophysical) data. From people I meet I get the impression that there are many fundies.

Wobbles: Woman must work so man can live by sweat of frau. Apparently the Lilith folk tale derives from the Adam and Eve myth not vice versa. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lilith#Lilith_in_the_Bible tells about it. Sexy nude with snake pictured.

david_f raises an interesting point: Most bible study is based on an arbitrary translation. So even if the "original" Hebrew version was God inspired...it certainly isn't after several language translations! Many instances occur where the bible "lessons" are the exact opposite of the author's intent. Jesus must be really annoyed at the Christians who completely ignore his main themes and instead support a priesthood.
Each religion seems to push it's own interpretation of the mis-translated text...so we get more confusion. Once again, the confidence of the faithful relies on intellectual laziness, or ignorance of the alternative meanings let alone the original intended meaning.
For the "pick and choose" scholars...Surely God's Word should be done a bit better than an IPCC report! Shouldn't it reflect some of God's power of perfection? If not then you may as well admit it is simply a collection of stories from a time where anything written had a magical quality, and superstition ruled.
I find it fascinating...but to "teach" children with it's "truth" is a form of psychological child abuse. (Until they realise it is BS it can be *very* stressful to the intelligent child!)
The bible is an interesting historical compilation, nothing more.

David

While we can’t know exactly what all of the bible’s authors and editors intended, we can get a fair idea of much of it from the form and content of their work. Most of Paul’s letters are intended as instruction and advice to the Christian communities he founded, often responding to particular problems or issues. The form and content of the Eden story suggests legend. The structure of some of the psalms leads scholars to believe that they were probably liturgical songs. The prophetic books of Jeremiah, second Isaiah, Ezra, Nehemiah etc are fairly clearly efforts to grapple with the theological implications of the Babylonian exile and return – events for which there is sufficient evidence that they can be regarded as historical fact.

Historical and literary analysis such as you mention add to the picture, as do the techniques of literary criticism. For example, if we accept the two-source hypothesis (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Two-source_hypothesis) we can look at the way in which the authors of Luke and Matthew added to or altered the text of Mark and draw some inferences about their motives and priorities. Granted, this process is speculative and we can never know with certainty what their motives were, but when consistent themes and ideas emerge there is good reason to believe that these reflect the authors’ intention.

For example, Matthew’s account of Jesus' birth includes many features that suggest that he is trying to draw parallels with Moses – the infant imperilled by a brutal tyrant; the slaughter of the innocents; the association with Egypt etc. None of the other gospels nor Paul make reference to these stories. In his Gospel, Matthew also emphasises Jesus as authentic interpreter and fulfilment of the law – again, echoing Moses. These things could be just coincidence, but I think it unlikely

I think the Bible is a magnificent work. It has majesty in its language, poetry in such books as the Song of Songs, a recipe for facing human suffering in Job and many other inspiring features. Its spare narratives are more often plot outlines rather than full-fledged works of literature. As such it has inspired such diverse writers as Thomas Mann, Leo Tolstoy and John Milton.

As Rhian points out one part of the Bible echoes another part and builds on it. It is an important part of our western heritage, and I think nobody unfamiliar with scripture can claim to be educated.

I read the Bible and get pleasure from it. Reading scholarly works on its origins heightens my pleasure.

However, much of it such as the begats is boring and repetitious. Much of it is contradictory, and it contains legendary material which should not be taken as anything other than that. One of the legends informing my attitude toward the Bible is the legend of the Golden Calf.

Exodus 32:4 And he received them at their hand, and fashioned it with a graving tool, after he had made it a molten calf: and they said, These be thy gods, O Israel, which brought thee up out of the land of Egypt. …. 32:7 And the LORD said unto Moses, Go, get thee down; for thy people, which thou broughtest out of the land of Egypt, have corrupted themselves: 32:8 They have turned aside quickly out of the way which I commanded them: they have made them a molten calf, and have worshipped it, and have sacrificed thereunto, and said, These be thy gods, O Israel, which have brought thee up out of the land of Egypt.

I feel that those who treat the Bible as literally true or as a guide for living in a world vastly different from the world in which it originated treat the Bible as a golden calf. They have set the Bible up as a God to be worshipped. It is a false God. I doubt that there are true ones.

csteele,

I am aware of this. What runner doesn't get is that these have been largely disposed of. I particularly think that Monty Python did the job well, and entertainingly.

Rusty

Cont...

Arg, sorry Rusty, cut off with the post limit.

To finish...

The next question is why hold these views when they subject one to ridicule from the rest of society? To many the longevity of the movement is unfathomable. The answer is simple, it affords one a sense of being persecuted.

From John 15 vs
18 If the world hate you, ye know that it hated me before it hated you.
19 If ye were of the world, the world would love his own: but because ye are not of the world, but I have chosen you out of the world, therefore the world hateth you.
20 Remember the word that I said unto you, The servant is not greater than his lord. If they have persecuted me, they will also persecute you; if they have kept my saying, they will keep yours also.
21 But all these things will they do unto you for my name's sake, because they know not him that sent me.

Look at what is happening in China today. Evangelical Christians now out number Communist party members. The persecutions of the authorities have forced the movement underground. Because they are meeting in small groups that must split if the number gets more than a dozen or so the growth has been amazing. This is how it must have been in the early church.

The persecution of the Jewish people over the millennia have served to fiercely bind a race together in a manner that has allowed it to survive culturally vibrant to this day.

However in a religiously tolerant society like our own, where we don't put Evangelical Christians in prisons or beat them for their views, something was needed to give that sense of being persecuted. Fundamentalism/Creationism has fitted the bill nicely without the dangers the fledgling Chinese house churches face.

Every slight or barb directed at runner only enhances his sense of being persecuted by the rest of us and thereby strengthening his faith. So be mindful you are engaging in faith building here rather than enlightening through scientific argument.

CJ

No problem for God to take a rib. I would say He could just as easily design the rib taken to grow back just like in a bone graft. You can like your colleague Rusty ignore all the magnificent design that went into man or you can continue to adhere to the fantasy of evolution. Rusty displays his pride and arrogance. He writes
'Do try and remember that some of us also passed physics, chemistry, biochemistry, genetics, and anatomy in just our first degree and so you will need to "show working" like other backward students suspected of getting their answers from others.'

Sounds like the global warming 'experts' all over who have found to be fraudulent and dishonest despite their phd's from Harvard and the like. Evolutionist have the same record. Don't forget their are many phd holders in science who believe the Genesis account Rusty. I think I will believe them rather than your claim to omniscience.

Of course it's no problem, runner.

Fictional entities can do anything, within the pages of the fiction. You can be like many other twits and ignore the overwhelming evidence, any separate stream of which supports evolution.
You claim problems yet never even give a single real example, being informed entirely by little pamphlets from pastor. You do indeed need to "show working", and as far as I'm concerned, so does pastor. Neither of you can actually argue your case.

Yep, I'm proud of my hard-won knowledge and I am correctly derisive of little know-nothings like you who hide behind supreme ignorance as if it was an adequate substitute.

To give you a little parable: If you go to a very skilled mechanic and inform him that certain adjustments "must" be made because "your mate read somewhere", he will be rightly dismissive.

In a similar vein, I dismiss your views.

Could you *name* a few phD's that *really* support the genesis account? I can name many who don't.There are many many more phd holders named "steve" who endorse evolution than those of any name supporting all creationist accounts combined. This particular position of yours was long ago made risible by "project steve". Look it up, you nong.

Further: It is possible to get a phD in enginering, know nothing about biology, and "support" creationism. It is not worthy of the same respect as an actual biologist who supports evolution, see mechanic parable above.

As for global warming: There is a strong first-principles reason why the atmosphere is absorbing more heat. Undisputed. The only question is how long it will hang around and by what mechanisms removed. Do
read a science book, rather than the funny sheets handed out on the street corner by cranks.

Rather than trust your cherry-picked cranks who *claim* omnicience on the basis of fevered imaginings, I can confirm the opinion of the overwhelming majority of phD's that both eveolution is correct and that global warming is a genuine risk. No omniscience required, just plain old science, which you may have read about but I do.

Rusty

all this Rusty and you and your mates still can't give an explanation for origins. All we get is numerous idiotic theories dressed in pseudo science. Your arrogance towards your Maker is astounding. The Scriptures describe the state of your heart perfectly.

Ah, runner gets pouty.

Your argument: The universe is too big/complex/blahblahblah to "just be". You fail to realise, probably due to childhood brainwashing, that your "explanation" requires that something bigger/complexer/blahblahblah could in fact "just be". That is *less* likely.

Who created your god? Show working.

The universe exists and your "god" *doesn't*. The onus for "god" theories rests on you.

In contrast: "We" have a well-established, well-supported theory of biological evolution. With fossils. With current living examples at various stages of speciation. Confirmed at the molecular level.

Abiogenesis is not trivial, but your own attempt to explain with a fairy-tale is. "We" have a knowledge of molecular cell-biology sufficient to isolate many cell-free systems. We have single molecules that display catalysis, cofactor-binding and template-behaviour. We have cell-free metabolic pathways with few complex catalysts. We established in the sixties the thermodynamic robustness of non-biological catalytic heterocycles that could trap energy sources and transfer the products to other stages. The organic precursors generated in the Miller-Urey experiment can be found in interstellar gas clouds of unimaginable volume and content. Intelligent people are working on this and getting closer to answers.

Where is the progress of science taking us? More confirmation of Darwin's "warm little pond", wherever it may be. Do you really think the next big fossil find will *not* be another intermediate of some sort?

Your "scriptures" were written by *men* with a personal and political agenda, distributed through various debilitating paths and assembled in one volume by a highly-politicised and self-interested editing team. To ignore this excessively inflates their real literary value.

Your unwillingness to clearly contemplate the world shows your heart in worse light than you can accuse me of.

If the "maker" doesn't exist, there is no arrogance. What bogeyman will you threaten with next? Leprechauns?

Again, *which* PhD's support genesis as their published professional opinion. Come on, you *must* know of a *few* second-raters. Surely "idiotic" "pseudo science" has a few detractors willing to put their names to criticism? *I* know some names. Has pastor told you? You just believe what you're told, do you?

Rusty

You might want to check and read in full:

Quotes from Christian scientists about Evolution:

1. Christian B. Anfinsen, (Ph.D. biochemistry, Harvard University, Nobel prize for physics)–
I think only an idiot can be an atheist. 22:139

2. David Berlinsky (Ph.D. mathematics, Princeton University)–

3. Michael Denton (M.D., molecular biologist)–
... evolution is no more or less than the great cosmogenic myth of the 20th century.

4. Isaac V. Manly, (M.D., Harvard Medical School)–
[Evolution] is a fairy tale myth. Society has suffered as a result of this adult fantasy... I can assure the reader the American Kennel Club would not certify an ancestor of your dog based on evidence such as paleontologists present. 29:15,117,228

5. Saltationist SØren LØvtrup, Professor of Embryology, University of Umea, Sweden–

6. H.S. Lipson, University of Manchester Institute of Science and Technology–
... we must go further than this and admit that the only acceptable explanation is creation.

7. Lemoine, former President of the Geological Society of France, Director of the Natural History Museum in Paris, editor of the Encyclopedia Francaise–

8. Ken Hsu, Geological Institute at Zurich, former President of the International Association of Sedimentologists–

9. Louis Neel, Nobel Prize for physics –

10. Arno Penzias, Nobel Prize for physics–
Creation is supported by all the data so far.22:83

11. Thomas C. Emmel, Ph.D. in Population Biology, Stanford University, Professor of Zoology, University of Florida, Gainesville–
To me, the concept of God is a logical outcome of the study of the immense universe that lies around us…. the evidence is all too pervasive for me to think otherwise.22:171

12. P.C.C. Garnham, M.D., D.Sc., recipient of the Darling Medal and Prize, Emeritus Professor of Medical Protozoology, University of London–
…by faith and by appreciation of scientific necessity, God must exist.22:173

13. Dr. A.E. Wilder-Smith, holder of three earned doctorates in science–

14. Dr. Louis Bounoure, Director of the Zoological Museum and Director of Research at the National Center of Scientific Research in France–
Evolutionism is a fairy tale for grown-ups.1:11

http://www.talkjesus.com/evidence-bible-prophecy/24242-debate-creation-evolution.html

and -

Debate between Christian biophysicist Cees Dekker and atheist philosopher Herman Philipse:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7Xwe4n-Tb4c&feature=related

and

Francis Sellers Collins (born April 14, 1950), M.D., Ph.D., is an American physician-geneticist, noted for his landmark discoveries of disease genes and his leadership of the Human Genome Project (HGP) and described by the Endocrine Society as "one of the most accomplished scientists of our time"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Francis_Collins_%28geneticist%29

Personally, I don't have the scientific knowledge or need (anymore) to nit pick through the scriptures. I tend to think that the Bible is a lovely collection of ancient writings of all sorts that convey spiritual truths; and that scientific findings are just wonderful ways of identifying mechanisms by which the world as we know it has come to be. I can't read Hebrew nor any form of Greek language, and I have my reservations about translators. I do understand the vagaries of historical and cultural circumstance that is unavoidably connected to any person's writings and interpretations. All up, I am fascinated by reading the information that everyone puts forward but I don't understand why everything needs to be constructed as a dichotomy between spiritual knowledge and everything else.

Anyway, one of the things I also find fascinating is that people who claim to reject Christianity can't help but hover around questions about it. That's a good thing!

Ah pynchme,

Well done! you can google!

These people *really* think evolution is "pseudo science" and support the "genesis account"?

You might want to check and read in full yourself, as homework.

Your first example: Anfinsen, in "The molecular basis of Evolution" (1959, reprinted 1964 Wiley Science Editions) examines evolutionary concepts in the molecular detail available in the fifties. Just leafing through my copy over a cuppa....
Page 213 "The study of biochemical evolution has already been of considerable value in the establishment of biological interrelationships"
page 219 "the evolution of the horses during the past 60,000,000 years has involved at least eight distinct genera"
page 222 "It will have been well worth the effort if it can help to stimulate the growing interest in evolution as the central theme in the life sciences"

I say that the quote you present is creationist wishful thinking, as opposed to his sustained and considered professional opinion on biological matters. Do you think that is honest scholarship? Good enough for womens studies and fundies?

The book whose blurb you found is a common type of creationist literature, a desperate quote-mining screed of the shallowest nature. "First cause" is a pet speculation of many physicists and almost any scientist might "leave the door open" here or there. Reading their actual scientific work does not give much comfort to literalists. Cyclic universes, inanimate initiators, remote deism, no prayers answered, no souls delivered. Quote-miners leap on it and try and talk it up as support for their dogma.

Regarding Francis Collins: Read your own reference. His position is theistic evolution and he rejects literal creationism. Hardly support of genesis, nor even a scratch on evolution. While *a* director of the genome project, he took over once it was business-as-usual. The *founding* director was atheist.

The dichotomy you object to is the unwillingness of fundies to acknowledge ground long lost and now justly claimed by knowledge and hard work. Runner wants religion to regain this and is willing to discard intellectual honesty and genuine understanding to get it. Are you?

The truth will make ye fret!

Rusty

Pynchme,

Caught out of course as the "true believers" often are...either taking quotes out of context or even making false implications such as

"7. Lemoine, former President of the Geological Society of France, Director of the Natural History Museum in Paris, editor of the Encyclopedia Francaise–" which is supposed to make us assume he favoured creation when the truth is...

"Paul Lemoine was an atheist, and he was against the theory of evolution because he felt it was not a good explanation of the origin of living beings and by showing its limits risked to discredit materialism. Although this point was not very clear we believe that when he spoke of "the theory of evolution" he was actually addressing the explanation of specifically [how] evolution [occurred] and not the [more general idea] of evolution itself."

Clearly said gentleman was not happy with evolution but still didn't believe in God.

Use the following link to research this quote and many other Pynchme et al "anti-evolution" attributions.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/ce/3/part12.html

Arguing against evolution by the fact that notable people reject it is no different from eating a breakfast cereal because a football player endorses it. It has nothing to with the validity of evolution or the merits of the cereal.

One disagrees with science by showing through observation, evidence or theory that it is not valid not by citing authority whatever that authority may be.

Hiya Rusty (and Peter King hi): I didn't say to look up the references to be a smarty; but to explore them equipped as you are with your understanding of science. The Anfinsen quote didn't come out of your old book. I went and found the quotes with references: http://www.ankerberg.com/Articles/_PDFArchives/science/SC3W0699.pdf

They are scientists who don't agree with evolution.

(Personally I quite like evolutionary theory. I enjoyed reading Darwin; he was a great writer and he agonized so much over his work and beliefs that one couldn't help but admire and empathize).

Anyway OK, scientists that are creationists as well. This site lists many and the links on some names give more complete details.
http://creation.com/creation-scientists

Here's an astronomer:
http://www.amazon.com/Genesis-One-Hugh-Ross-Ph-D/dp/1886653380

That's just a bit of chat from Collins:
http://edition.cnn.com/2007/US/04/03/collins.commentary/index.html

That's a list of references to be used with a main text. Just posting so you can see that there are quite a few pro-creation scientists there:
http://www.christiananswers.net/q-eden/origin-of-life-ref.html

David - I agree with your comment and respect you without question. However, I am not arguing against evolution - as I said, I don't have the language skills, or the scientific knowledge, to do so. By the same measure, I don't have the scientific knowledge to argue in favour of it either.

The links I've provided point out that there is a wide range of opinion on these topics - for me to pick any one of them and claim to believe it would require on my part some faith in other authorities.
The best minds in science, theology and languages argue over Biblical writings. I think it would be false of me to weigh in; though I read what others write with great interest.

Embracing Christianity requires faith; just as believing any particular scientific theory would do. Frankly, for all that science has discovered or is in the process of discovering, there is not one definitive piece of wisdom that matches the way of life modelled by Jesus.

The Bible is accessible to anyone. The stories within and the wisdom is for everyone - not only people with some knowledge of science.

Yes pynchme, I know *your* Anfinsen quote came from an exercise in quote mining. Good of you to acknowledge that.

*My* Anfinsen quote came from *his own book* "The Molecular Basis of Evolution". A classic in the field, which he wrote, expressing his long-held and supported professional position, desiring that others may understand. It was very much at odds with the cheapie you dug up.

Do you really think Anfinsen *really* supports the genesis account, or thinks evolution is not true? *Just* because what's-his-name can find a quote somewhere, arguably discussing first cause, a very speculative topic.

My point stands, yours is a dodgy as a two dollar hooker.
Now go look up the rest on *your* list, go find their *own* works, read them like an exam will be held.

You still do not percieve the difference between genuine scholarship (reading the authors works in depth) and self-indulgence (buying little compendia of quotes that are carefully selected to reflect the opinion of the target market).

You dig up a quick interview with Collins, but fail to address the fact that *your own reference* clearly said he accepts evolution and rejects literal interpretations of genesis.

No need to bother with the second-raters like Demski, who don't make much money outside of peddling such rot to captive fundy audiences.

Your shallow cherry-picking, of a commercially-inspired screed without checking (a)the genuine opinion of the quotee (b) the actual content of your own reference regarding the quotee, serves to demonstrate that you do not understand your topic, have not researched it with any attention or diligence. Do you think "jesus" or "jehova" really approve of sloppy and self-serving quote-mining? Is *that* good enough? Clearly is for you.

The *point* of all this, including baiting runner, has been to illustrate the orinal article:

Less than critical reading of the bible (or anything else), with due regard to literary history, translation, the context of the times, etc results in a tragic tendency to not understand it, and to make misinformed claims on that basis.

Rusty, You seem to be stuck in one track here. I said that I'm not trying to disprove (or prove) evolution. I am not in an argument about it. It doesn't matter much to me what Collins says about evolution; but what he, as a scientist, says about his beliefs.

However, I am showing that there is enough variety of opinion that it isn't an absolute truth - it remains a debatable theory - as many of the other scientists to whom I referred attest. Despite all of that there are accomplished scientists who find no incompatibility between their religious beliefs and science.

Collins: "You have to hear the music, not just read the notes on the page. Ultimately, a leap of faith is required."

You've made a "leap of faith", and so have I.

Poor pynchme.

Keeping on track,

You didn't lob in when you did, with the post you did, to be a smarty? not at all.

"you might want to check and read in full", Did more than that. catch up.

You're *not* in an argument about it? obviously not. Recieving instruction maybe.

Here is the second line of your first post:
"Quotes from Christian scientists about Evolution:" chucked into a thread about biblical literalism in reference to a digression about evolution.

From your most recent post:
"It doesn't matter much to me what Collins says about evolution; but what he, as a scientist, says about his beliefs" well his beliefs about evolution are right there and his beliefs about genesis are there too. Does it matter what Anfinsen really held, or just what makes you feel good? What does a demonstrably false basis say about your beliefs?

The "variety of opinion".... Why does the "variety" need to be falsely presented as more than it is? Who benefits?

"it remains a debatable theory" Only if someone can "create" a false impression of controversy by using dodgy references and co-opted gravitas. who benefits?

"as many of the other scientists to whom I referred attest." Of the *other* ones *how* many? Attest what? that (they believe) evolution is true but they like a differring taxonomy for newts? That (they believe) evolution is true but that "some agency" may have a role as first cause. That (they believe) evolution is true but only in their professional capacity. not to be forgotten, of course, the gap-fillers like demski (say they) believe evolution is not true, and they do little else but say so.

"there are accomplished scientists who find no incompatibility between their religious beliefs and science" Just heaps fewer than you and that blurb imply. Virtually no literalists are accomplished. The accomplished aren't literalists. What intent does deliberate skewing of information imply?

How can you hear the music with your ears full of pastor?

If a leap of faith is "informed" by deliberate misinformation and vested interests, why should it be regarded as valid?

Rusty