Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
5 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/7


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Bible accepts evolution
platypus
Member (Idle past 5753 days)
Posts: 139
Joined: 11-12-2006


Message 1 of 80 (368923)
12-11-2006 2:27 AM


Not sure if something along these lines have been proposed before, I am relatively new here. But this recently came up, so I wnat to bring it up.
At the Beyond Belief 2006 conference (http://beyondbelief2006.org/Watch/) there was a very interesting exchange between Joan Roughgarden and Richard Dawkins (which I would recommend watching if you have time). What I would like to focus on are two comments made by Joan in her recent book "Evolution and Christian Faith." (Amazon.com)
She describes two passages in the Bible that report evolution.
1) Genesis 30:30- 31:12
Jacob and Laban get into a bit of a skiff, and come to the agreement that Jacob will take care of Laban's sheep, and as payment will be able to keep all of the brown or speckled sheep in the herd. And then the sheep all become brown and speckled, thus Jacob get holy recompensation for his suffering under Laban. God speaks to Jacob (through his angel, Gen 31 11-12) " Lift up now thine eyes, and see, all the rams which leap upon the cattle are... speckled... for I have seen all that Jacob has done unto thee." The implication that God influenced which sheep interbreed in order to steer the course of evolution in Jacob's favor. Here, God accepts natural selection and uses it to achieve his goals. He does not simply wave his hand and cause all the sheep to become speckled- rather, he used the subtle process of selective breeding over 7 years to cause all the sheep to become brown.
2) Jesus's parable of the mustard seed. Matthew 13. I won't quote this directly, cause it is a bit long, but the point is, Jesus describes how a farmer spreads mustard seeds along the ground. Some fall on rocks, and are eaten by crows, some fall on bad soil and spring up quickly to be scorched, but a few fall on good soil, and those few spring up 30-fold, or 60-fold, or 100-fold. He compares this to how his words are recieved by listeners, and how he does not expect to convince everyone of his teachings, but those that he does convince will be extremely fruitful. What is interesting to note here is what Jesus is describing is essentially genetic drift- a random process of fixation of some genes over others when the total number of surviving individuals in a population is low. The mustard seeds are spread, and only a few survive, but those few that survive spring up like mad. In other words, Jesus accepts that a random process of gene spreading can lead to fixation of a few of these genes. Emphasis on random, since many creationists seem to have problems with that word.
Not really sure what category this belongs to...

Replies to this message:
 Message 3 by ringo, posted 12-11-2006 4:12 PM platypus has replied
 Message 7 by Larni, posted 12-12-2006 4:48 AM platypus has not replied
 Message 15 by 4Pillars, posted 12-21-2006 3:17 PM platypus has not replied
 Message 72 by Straggler, posted 12-23-2006 9:02 PM platypus has not replied
 Message 74 by joshua221, posted 12-24-2006 2:03 AM platypus has not replied

  
platypus
Member (Idle past 5753 days)
Posts: 139
Joined: 11-12-2006


Message 4 of 80 (369143)
12-11-2006 7:48 PM
Reply to: Message 3 by ringo
12-11-2006 4:12 PM


fixation
A few seeds spread 100 fold, whereas most spread not at all- maybe fixation is the wrong word. But whatever alleles are found in the rapidly multiplying species become dominant. The story describes a change in the allele frequency of a population due to a random event.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by ringo, posted 12-11-2006 4:12 PM ringo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 5 by ringo, posted 12-11-2006 7:59 PM platypus has replied
 Message 9 by jaywill, posted 12-20-2006 10:24 PM platypus has not replied

  
platypus
Member (Idle past 5753 days)
Posts: 139
Joined: 11-12-2006


Message 6 of 80 (369216)
12-12-2006 1:45 AM
Reply to: Message 5 by ringo
12-11-2006 7:59 PM


Re: fixation
Let's say there are three kinds of mustard seeds, seed A, seed B, and seed C, corresponding to three different alleles. Let's say we spread 100 seeds of each A, B, and C, and of these 300 total seeds, only 3 survive. These 3 that survive produce 100fold more offspring each. The allele frequency of the next generation is determined by which three alleles are in the three seeds that survive, and this selection process is random. There are pretty good odds that the 3 survivors will not be an A, B, and C, thus the allele frequencies are likely to drastically change.
Granted, it's reading into the passage a bit. The important point is not the allele frequency change, but the acknowledgement by Jesus of random selection in a context that can be applied to evolutionary theory.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 5 by ringo, posted 12-11-2006 7:59 PM ringo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 8 by ringo, posted 12-12-2006 11:32 AM platypus has not replied

  
platypus
Member (Idle past 5753 days)
Posts: 139
Joined: 11-12-2006


Message 38 of 80 (371544)
12-22-2006 3:20 AM


On topic
Pillars,
Your arguments concerning information and kinds has been addressed in another thread. Confidence relayed a position very similarto yours in that thread, and has yet to respond to the arguments offered by RAZD and I. Perhaps you'll be inclined to try your hand. Here's the link:
http://EvC Forum: Why Evolution is science -->EvC Forum: Why Evolution is science
As for the topic of this thread, I grant that neither of my examples point to "macroevolutionary trends," as creationists like to think of them. Yeah, the second example is pretty bad, I stopped replying because I tended to agree with your responses and because I haven't read the Bible recently and wasn't knowledgeable enough to comment. I don't really think whether the Bible says anything about evolution or not makes any difference in the matter, the truth is the truth, no matter what the Bible says. That statement will probably anger some people. Or maybe get them to more closely examine their worldview. Maybe... Hopefully...

  
platypus
Member (Idle past 5753 days)
Posts: 139
Joined: 11-12-2006


Message 44 of 80 (371657)
12-22-2006 2:40 PM
Reply to: Message 43 by 4Pillars
12-22-2006 12:36 PM


Re: It's the over-all pattern that counts
Pillars,
Please read through these links:
http://EvC Forum: Can random mutations cause an increase in information in the genome? -->EvC Forum: Can random mutations cause an increase in information in the genome?
http://EvC Forum: Why Evolution is science -->EvC Forum: Why Evolution is science
Basically, the issue you're raising is old news, and has all ready been refuted in several different forms on this forum. The basic problem is that once a clear, exact definition is given for information, it can be shown to increase, usually by a increase in the total length of the genome, which can be done by something as simple as gene duplication. If you say gene duplication isn't new information, it just says the same thing over again, I'm going to say define information in such a way that it can be measured. Basically read the above threads before progressing any further, and see if you still have anything useful to add to the discussion.

You hear evolutionist says we are descedant from apes and monkees. Sure, but that's not the point. All of life is related, not just human's with monkees. If you hug a tree, you're hugging a relative, a very distant relative, but a relative nonetheless." Dr. Joan Roughgarden in Evolution and Christian Faith

This message is a reply to:
 Message 43 by 4Pillars, posted 12-22-2006 12:36 PM 4Pillars has not replied

  
platypus
Member (Idle past 5753 days)
Posts: 139
Joined: 11-12-2006


Message 54 of 80 (371699)
12-22-2006 5:57 PM
Reply to: Message 52 by 4Pillars
12-22-2006 5:28 PM


RE: Scripture and True Science
The fault is Not with God's Truth, but with man's ability to understand it...
Exactly, it is how man understands the Bible which is at fault.
Man once understood the Bible to mean that the earth was at the center of the universe. Whether the Bible actually says such a thing or not is beside the point, men had wrongly understood the Bible to mean such a thing. Scientific findings produced an opposite conclusion, and ended up being correct. Thus man's interpretation of the Bible changed.
The same thing seems to be happening for evolution. Some time not too long ago, creationists believed that all of evolution was wrong, including speciation and natural selection. They believed that this assertion was supported by the Bible. Now creationists believe that speciation and natural selection do occur, probably in light of convincing scientific evidence and common sense. This thread points to some Biblical passages that can be interpreted to support such an assertion.
Creationists still do not accept "macroevolution," as if it is some unique concept. Dr. Roughgarden voices the opinion in her book that nothing in the Bible actually contradicts the scientific meaning of evolution, and that a few passages even support elements of evolution. Or in other words, there are ways in which the Bible can be UNDERSTOOD which are not in conflict with evolution. In other words, science does not argue against the Bible, its simply calls for a new interpretation of the Bible, as have other scientific theories in the past.
If you're looking for the one truth I suggest allowing for an interplay between science and religion, as has been suggested by Pope John Paul II
Science can purify religion from error and superstition. Religion can purify science from idolatry and false absolutes.
You are simply trying to force science into preconcieved religion notions, instead of opening your mind to the insight science can offer to religion, and to new understanding of the Bible. Perhaps the Bible is always correct, but we have misunderstood it. The solution is not to reject science, but to rexamine out understanding of the Bible and look for misinterpretations.
BTW- I am not sexist, please substitute "human" for "man" if you are so inclined. I was responding using the language Pillars had offered.

You hear evolutionist says we are descedant from apes and monkees. Sure, but that's not the point. All of life is related, not just human's with monkees. If you hug a tree, you're hugging a relative, a very distant relative, but a relative nonetheless." Dr. Joan Roughgarden in Evolution and Christian Faith

This message is a reply to:
 Message 52 by 4Pillars, posted 12-22-2006 5:28 PM 4Pillars has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 59 by 4Pillars, posted 12-22-2006 7:02 PM platypus has replied

  
platypus
Member (Idle past 5753 days)
Posts: 139
Joined: 11-12-2006


Message 55 of 80 (371701)
12-22-2006 6:06 PM
Reply to: Message 47 by 4Pillars
12-22-2006 3:51 PM


RE: "Bible accepts evolution"
[qs] The title is Distorted - should be - Evolutionist Accept the Teachings of Genesis as Science. :-) /qs
If that was the title, it would imply that evolutionists accept evolution because it was shown to be true in Genesis. That is simply not true, evolutionists accept evolution because it is supported by scientific evidence.
This thread attempts to make evolution easier to swallow for creationists- that was Dr. Roughgarden's intent in her book and I wished to hear some feedback on what people thought of her attempt.

You hear evolutionist says we are descedant from apes and monkees. Sure, but that's not the point. All of life is related, not just human's with monkees. If you hug a tree, you're hugging a relative, a very distant relative, but a relative nonetheless." Dr. Joan Roughgarden in Evolution and Christian Faith

This message is a reply to:
 Message 47 by 4Pillars, posted 12-22-2006 3:51 PM 4Pillars has not replied

  
platypus
Member (Idle past 5753 days)
Posts: 139
Joined: 11-12-2006


Message 58 of 80 (371714)
12-22-2006 6:50 PM
Reply to: Message 57 by ringo
12-22-2006 6:27 PM


RE: Scripture and True Science
Actually, Ringo, my first example only addressed natural selection. I'd be quite interested in knowing if the Bible showed any support for other aspects of evolution, or for evolution in general, which was where your discussion was headed.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 57 by ringo, posted 12-22-2006 6:27 PM ringo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 60 by ringo, posted 12-22-2006 7:07 PM platypus has not replied

  
platypus
Member (Idle past 5753 days)
Posts: 139
Joined: 11-12-2006


Message 61 of 80 (371723)
12-22-2006 7:38 PM
Reply to: Message 59 by 4Pillars
12-22-2006 7:02 PM


RE: Scripture and True Science
I won't respond to this, except to point out that your statement is wrong. Evidence at the genetic level strongly favors "macroevolution," as you refer to it. But a discussion of that evidence is off-topic. I have all ready given you two links which point to discussions about those issues. Bring up your points in the appropriate thread, or start a new one, and I will respond to them.
Ringo, I was refering to your latest parley with pillars, about whether the Bible recognizes any sort of science. But hey, you seem to be more of a Bible-expert than myself, go ahead and talk about any Bible passages which may point to an evolutionary/scientific standpoint. Or whether those passages even exist. I'm honestly curious.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 59 by 4Pillars, posted 12-22-2006 7:02 PM 4Pillars has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 62 by 4Pillars, posted 12-22-2006 8:36 PM platypus has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024