Global Warmoing spinoff: what to say to a Creationist

[Kulindahr]

For the lead-up to this, go see the Global Warming, Anyone thread.


For the more immediate launching point:
http://www.normanchilds.com/10. Like before flood.html


Reading through some of that, trying not to wiggle hard enough tyo worry my dog, I came to one too many statement that the Bible "establishes" that the earth is less than ten thousand years old. Now, before you laugh, please read on... just for kicks, and this being Christmas Eve so I tried to be nice, I sent them this:


There's a bit of an error on your site: you assert that the Bible claims an age for the Earth. Having read the entire thing in Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek, I know there's no such claim. The best claim that could be done is that human civilization is less than eight thousand years old; there is no chronology possible for anything else.

Just as one example of your error: Gen. 1 says that the Spirit of God hovered/mediated over the surface of the deep. It doesn't say how long! Science demonstrates that the Earth has billion-year-old rocks; well, that doesn't contradict Genesis at all. For those who don't take the seven days literally, that's not even a matter for discussion, but for those who do, it shouldn't be, either. We have no reason to believe that the Spirit of God hovered/meditated for just one second or for a billion years (or two). Why? Maybe He took the time for the angels to get over the awe and wonder of there being something rather than nothing (pretty big chance, that), and then let them contemplate that here, in this rude sphere of rock and water, was where God the Son, apart from whom not even they had been made, was going to take on that same material stuff God had invented, and walk around in a form God hadn't shown them yet <cue eagerness from the angels to see what He had planned>.

The second big item is Adam and Eve in the Garden. Nothing at all even suggests how long it was there. Ever since Sunday School I figured it had to be a very, very long time; after all, these two were in God's image, and no quick sell would have turned them. We have no indication that they didn't spend a billion years in perfect delight before the Tempter even managed to get Eve's attention as something other than one of the animals that had an annoying habit of trying to talk to her. We have no indication that, once he got her attention, it didn't take millennia to crack her resolve. I've never believed our first parents were such easy knock-overs, and once I got to it in the Hebrew and Aramaic and Greek, I realized that the "flavor" or the account wasn't even suggesting as much; like a sports highlight show, it doesn't give us the entire game, it gives the plays that made the difference.
And while they were in the Garden, who knows what was going on outside? God may have been running through a whole series of species just for His own pleasure, which is why any species at all were created, according to the Apostle. The standard fossil record could be roughly correct -- outside the Garden.

And then a handful of thousands of years ago, Eve cracked, Adam fell, the Garden was shut down, and they emerged to find the world much as we recognize it.

Only there does the Bible begin to offer a chronology.



Part of me wanted to say, "You're one of the people prophesied when He said some would come who would spread lies".
Some around here would just tell them they're idiots.


So, what would you say to a creationist?

 

[Supersix]

I'd say 'does it really matter'? None of us were around 100 years ago, and none of us will be around 100 years from now. That time span is but a fleeting moment in time, whether 5,000 years of history or 100 billion years. I see no point to a discussion about creationism vs. evolution. Although, undoubtedly, some of you will jump at the chance to point to this or that fact and yell at the opposing side with sniveling arrogance.

 

[Supersix]

By the way, I am impressed that you read in the old aramaic, hebrew and greek. To my knowlege, aramaic and greek are the closest thing we have to the original texts of the Bible. I took a class a long time ago, and the teacher, a theologian, constantly studied the bible and read whatever he could find of those ancient writings in those languages, to try and be as accurate as possible. Very interesting.

 

[Kulindahr]

I'd say 'does it really matter'? None of us were around 100 years ago, and none of us will be around 100 years from now. That time span is but a fleeting moment in time, whether 5,000 years of history or 100 billion years. I see no point to a discussion about creationism vs. evolution. Although, undoubtedly, some of you will jump at the chance to point to this or that fact and yell at the opposing side with sniveling arrogance.

That's an amazing answer!

I'd love to see some of the faces of the 'evangelicals' I know if they heard that.

 

[Kulindahr]

By the way, I am impressed that you read in the old aramaic, hebrew and greek. To my knowlege, aramaic and greek are the closest thing we have to the original texts of the Bible. I took a class a long time ago, and the teacher, a theologian, constantly studied the bible and read whatever he could find of those ancient writings in those languages, to try and be as accurate as possible. Very interesting.

Sadly, I've gotten rusty. If my life would settle from the edge of homelessness, I might have time to rejuvenate those skills.

If I could find my original class notes, especially for the Greek: I learned classical first (the onyl way to go; otherwise NT Greek doesn't make sense).

 

[Kulindahr]

Nice, Kul, I'm curious about their response!

Actually that's a fair statement of where I was before I encountered the little bit of knowledge that the Genesis 1 account is an example of a type of ancient near eastern literature called a "royal chronicle"....

They'd probably say that the end is nigh, as it has apparently been for nearly two millenia now according to the little death cult that can't keep its promise. That seems to be the going response if you question a possible 100 or 5000 years later to those folk.

Hmm. From the ones I've known, including pastors, they'll likely try to bury my answer with Bible passages that really don't bear on it. The most likely attack is that it says "in six days God made the heavens and the earth", in which case I'll point out that that statement only refers days on which He did any work.... and "hovering/meditating" isn't work (BTW, I absolutely love the Hebrew word there, which can be rendered as either of the two words I used, or both together, along with "brooding" -- because it isn't a ho-hum statement of where the Spirit of God happened to be in relation to the yet-unformed Earth so much as a relational statement, like an artist meditating on an unformed black of marble or a mother bird sitting on her eggs).

Speaking of the devil--- it's your birthday, Jesus! Wipe the cheese dust off of your pudge, get off the sofa at the right hand of your father, and try not to orange up that pretty white horse's mane whilst you break its back with the burden of your it-is-impossible-to-believe-people-believe-this-crap-still promise 'at hand'. At the very least, come down and get your gift from me! Here's a hint:

Heh. Cue Bill Cosby...

"You know I don't work that way!"

 

[Corny]

I just laugh at them and move on. If they want a discussion about it just ignore them and continue to laugh at them. Ignorance drives them mad.

 

[silosybin]

That's an amazing answer!

I'd love to see some of the faces of the 'evangelicals' I know if they heard that.

unfortunately they're usually more interested in the arguing than whether the answer is actually important

you can't keep up unswerving faith if you don't instantly throw a temper tantrum to block out any suggestion you might be wrong

 

[Kulindahr]

unfortunately they're usually more interested in the arguing than whether the answer is actually important

you can't keep up unswerving faith if you don't instantly throw a temper tantrum to block out any suggestion you might be wrong

Actually, that's a recipe for a brittle faith -- because actually it's not true.

The more shrill and strident the "defenders", generally the more brittle the faith.

 

[rareboy]

I just ask them if they're planning on visiting this:

http://idle.slashdot.org/story/10/12/03/1226202/Kentucky-Announces-Creationism-Theme-Park

Oh look where it is going to be.

And the Governor himself announced the project.

And it will be supported by the taxpayers.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/12/21/ark-encounter-creationist-theme-park_n_799603.html

Seriously.

 

[palemale]

I'd say 'does it really matter'? None of us were around 100 years ago, and none of us will be around 100 years from now. That time span is but a fleeting moment in time, whether 5,000 years of history or 100 billion years. I see no point to a discussion about creationism vs. evolution. Although, undoubtedly, some of you will jump at the chance to point to this or that fact and yell at the opposing side with sniveling arrogance.

I'm not sure what your point is, here. A recent Gallup poll showed that 40% of the population does not believe in evolution, including 52% of Republicans. http://www.gallup.com/poll/145286/four-americans-believe-strict-creationism.aspx It doesn't bother you that so many people reject basic science in favor of magical thinking?

 

[rareboy]

I think it does matter myself.

If all the creationists didn't also keep spewing a whole lot of other bronze and iron age philosophy as the literal word of 'God'; if they didn't actively and actually set about to impose their falsehoods on the rest of the world, I wouldn't care if they all believed we were delivered by storks.

But when these unlearned and dangerously ignorant vandals grasp control of the national discourse on any subject, then it matters. When any presidential candidate says they believe in creationism and by extension, in the KJV bible as the the voice of a god instead of the meanderings of scholars, historians and human lawyers, then it means they also believe in the 'real' rather than the poetic interpretation of the 'End Times' and the apocalypse of Revelations. This makes them dangerous.

I like the creation myths of all the world's religions. They are no better or worse or more or less ridiculous than the Judeo/Christian notions of the origins of the species. That the one notion has had a stranglehold on the collective imagination of the European and American immigrants for about 2000 years is the result of brute force and the control exerted by the 'Christian' fundamentalists since the reformation.

 

[wooffy]

But when these unlearned and dangerously ignorant vandals grasp control of the national discourse on any subject, then it matters. When any presidential candidate says they believe in creationism and by extension, in the KJV bible as the the voice of a god instead of the meanderings of scholars, historians and human lawyers, then it means they also believe in the 'real' rather than the poetic interpretation of the 'End Times' and the apocalypse of Revelations. This makes them dangerous.

I find it equally frightening whatever delusion enters the public discourse. Once a politician starts making religions comments around public policy, it doesn't mater much to me what the specific comments are.

I like the creation myths of all the world's religions. They are no better or worse or more or less ridiculous than the Judeo/Christian notions of the origins of the species. That the one notion has had a stranglehold on the collective imagination of the European and American immigrants for about 2000 years is the result of brute force and the control exerted by the 'Christian' fundamentalists since the reformation.

Creation myths are fascinating, and provide a lot of insight into the development of a culture.

 

[Kulindahr]

When any presidential candidate says they believe in creationism and by extension, in the KJV bible as the the voice of a god instead of the meanderings of scholars, historians and human lawyers, then it means they also believe in the 'real' rather than the poetic interpretation of the 'End Times' and the apocalypse of Revelations. This makes them dangerous.

Just for accuracy: "poetic" and "real" are not only not the only two options for interpreting John's Apocalypse, but given the sort of literature it is, they are not mutually exclusive either.
Nor is treating it as "real" the problem -- it's treating it as real in the fashion of a train schedule or excerpts from the script of a play received beforehand. It isn't meant to be remotely anything like either of those.
Again, my big beef is that they don't even know how to read the Book.

And that makes it hard to talk to them about Creationism -- first they have to be shown how to read.

I like the creation myths of all the world's religions. They are no better or worse or more or less ridiculous than the Judeo/Christian notions of the origins of the species. That the one notion has had a stranglehold on the collective imagination of the European and American immigrants for about 2000 years is the result of brute force and the control exerted by the 'Christian' fundamentalists since the reformation.

I like the dipped sligit. Sometimes it feels like it's been that long. Sometimes I feel like I was fifty before I was fifteen, from the weight of the idiocy. Sorta tragic: C. S. Lewis wrote and excellent book called The Weight of Glory, but these folks are stumbling around in the weight of idiocy.

I beg to differ about the creation myths: creatio ex nihilo is far more elegant than a lump of dirt on the back of a turtle on the back of an elephant rising out of a swamp. It gets close competition from one (can't recall whose) which has an avatar of the Creator diving into the flames of chaos and bringing out a scoop of flame-stuff which cooled to a flaming gem which, once the Creator blows on it, transforms into a world, to which the Creator sends the avatar to make a place for living things. What those two share in elegance against the rest is that the Creation is markedly different from what was prior, i.e. nothingness or primordial fire.

Gotta remember where that second one is from.....


Though I suspect that mentioning "other creation myths" to a creationist isn't exactly going to open any lines of communication.

 

[FirmaFan]

At what point in the evolutionary history of human beings did Adam and Eve come along?

 

[Supersix]

I'm not sure what your point is, here. A recent Gallup poll showed that 40% of the population does not believe in evolution, including 52% of Republicans. http://www.gallup.com/poll/145286/four-americans-believe-strict-creationism.aspx It doesn't bother you that so many people reject basic science in favor of magical thinking?

The arguments go back and forth forever. It doesn't change anything. Doctors disagree on how to treat a patient all the time, and they all claim to base their desicion on science, clinical experience, and God knows what else. Many things in life require a leap of faith. It doesn't bother me that some people believe what the Bible says, and others believe what Darwin wrote. I myself have never studied Darwin, so how could I sit here and say he was right or wrong? I have a job, and it makes no difference in my life, so I will not waste mt time and read what he wrote. I have other more important obligations and interests. We are all still here, and have lives to live. By the way, many people have read the Bible, although not nearly as thoroughly as Kulindahr, but I wonder if half as many have read anything Darwin wrote? Or do they just "believe" because it is popular among the intelligentsia to do so? A great many people LOVE to fit in at any cost.

 

[FirmaFan]

The arguments go back and forth forever. It doesn't change anything. Doctors disagree on how to treat a patient all the time, and they all claim to base their desicion on science, clinical experience, and God knows what else. Many things in life require a leap of faith. It doesn't bother me that some people believe what the Bible says, and others believe what Darwin wrote. I myself have never studied Darwin, so how could I sit here and say he was right or wrong? I have a job, and it makes no difference in my life, so I will not waste mt time and read what he wrote. I have other more important obligations and interests. We are all still here, and have lives to live. By the way, many people have read the Bible, although not nearly as thoroughly as Kulindahr, but I wonder if half as many have read anything Darwin wrote? Or do they just "believe" because it is popular among the intelligentsia to do so? A great many people LOVE to fit in at any cost.

It is quite obvious that you have little to no actual understanding of evolution, such that you can say things like people "believing" in evolution and the reason for doing so is because it's "popular among the intelligent"...No...wrong. Evolution is an extremely well established scientific theory, it is even more established than gravity. Yes, we have more evidence supporting evolution than we do to support gravity. Evolution is not just some idea that is contained in only what Darwin wrote...so much more has been discovered that Darwin never new about (genetics, etc). The theory is constantly revised and updated to incorporate new data, and never has a single piece of that data ever shown evolution to be false. And since you seem to think that evolution is just some idea that really doesn't matter when it comes down to people just living their lives, you obviously haven't got a clue as to what kinds of advances the theory of evolution has allowed us to make. Most people are still alive today because of some advance in science and medicine that comes from evolutionary biology. Just to give you some idea of the kinds of things you probably have no idea evolution gave you, know this....the ability to write data to things like CDs and computer hard drives came from the study of the evolution of the eyes of moths. If you use a computer your job, then evolution definitely makes a difference in your life. Even balls-to-the-wall creationists have evolution to thank for something in their lives, no matter how sternly they reject it.

 

[Kulindahr]

At what point in the evolutionary history of human beings did Adam and Eve come along?

You really would ask a Creationist that?

You realize there's a word in there that they won't even hear, right? or would be the only one they heard?

 

[Supersix]

Since you seem to know so much about evolution, do creationism and evolution completely cancel each other out, or can there be aspects of each that are true? I'm sure everyone has an opinion, I'm asking for facts, since the discussion is still ongoing. Aren't there leaps of faith in evolution, and what is the "missing link"? Some of you may respect that I am considering both sides before forming an opinion.

 

[FirmaFan]

You really would ask a Creationist that?

You realize there's a word in there that they won't even hear, right? or would be the only one they heard?

I was actually wondering what your answer to that question was. Your post is a letter about how you rationalize the time line of the bible with the geological evidence of the age of the earth. I understand you accept the theory of evolution yet your letter seems to denote that you also accept the book of genesis, and have simply extended the timeline of the events to fit the 4.5 billion year age of the earth, and speak of Adam and Eve as though they actually existed. I find the theory of evolution and the existence of Adam and Eve incompatible, but, as you seem to have a reconciliation between the book of genesis and scientific evidence, I was curious to know your consolidation of the existence of Adam and Eve with the evolution of human beings.