Making waves (Introduction)

by dhw, Monday, June 17, 2013, 17:36 (4178 days ago) @ David Turell

dhw: In all seriousness, though, we need to agree what level we wish to discuss things on. If the bible, like reality itself, is merely what we want it to be, all discussion becomes pointless.-DAVID: The Jewish sages have spent over a thousand years developing commentaries on the bible. If one can look at the simple words for meanings, as you demand,why are they still producing commentaries? The bible is an allegory. There is more hidden in it than meets the simple eye.-And how many of these scholars have interpreted the Genesis account as meaning that humans and chimps descended from a common ancestor? We have no idea how much of the bible is allegory, how much is history, how much is pure fiction, but since millions of people still believe in the bible's version of separate creation and are hostile to Darwin's theory of common descent, you can scarcely IGNORE what the bible says! You and Tony have stated categorically that it is not anti-evolution, and that is the statement I'm disputing. In the Genesis account, even according to Tony's interpretation, the text clearly argues for separate creation, as against the theory that ALL SPECIES including humans are "the lineal descendants" from the earliest organisms. I've challenged you to find a way of interpreting this particular text to show that it is not opposed to Darwin's theory. If you cannot do so, then none of your justified generalizations and none of your references to other passages concerning swarms of creatures, eons and the Big Bang can alter the fact that the only biblical version we know is pro separate creation of species and anti common descent, and is therefore anti-evolution.
 
As I said to Tony, it's entirely up to you whether you believe in common descent or you believe in separate creation. Darwin repeatedly argued that his theory was perfectly compatible with belief in a creator God, and many theists including yourself find no difficulty in combining those two theories. But Darwin's is not compatible with the account given in the bible as we know it. Find me a different version of Genesis, or give me a Darwinian interpretation of the account we know, and I might take your claim more seriously!