Thought Quotient

9 Responses to “Scientists study Genesis…”

1. Leighton Says:
   February 25th, 2005 at 7:54 pm

   While coating a wooden vessel of the size of the ark with pitch would probably keep it from leaking in the expected way, what the article actually talks about is the problem of joint separation. This is the sort of thing you see in buildings after major earthquakes: the combination of compression/expansion stress and shear force causes them to literally come apart at the seams. Ocean waves in storm conditions cause comparable problems in sufficiently large vessels, and pitch doesn’t help this problem any more than glue makes buildings more earthquake-safe.

   The Talk.Origins crew habitually updates their articles as better information comes to light. If you don’t find Mark Isaak’s treatment of the text satisfactory, you might consider leaving them a note in the feedback section. If you like, you can look at the prior feedbacks to see what kind of response is likely.

   Cheers,
   Leighton

2. Roger Says:
   February 26th, 2005 at 12:15 am

   You’ve pinpointed the problem Leighton, their opinions change, therefore their conclusions change as well. What if I take stock in their views, and wake up one day and realize they’ve concluded that it was all wrong, they have a better idea now? Where does that leave me?

   It still confuses me that they look at the Bible so critically all the while not believing it. Why bother? It seems like they are trying to prove something more for their own peace of mind than anything else.

3. Leighton Says:
   February 26th, 2005 at 1:33 am

   Roger,

   It’s not a problem at all: it’s how science works. It’s not a question of trusting Scientists (PBUT) and clinging to their views, nor is it a question of finding the Answer and clinging to it in perpetuity. If you trust their opinions and they change their opinions, so can you. It’s not a big deal. But ideally, you won’t just blindly take their word for it; you’ll investigate the evidence for yourself (that’s why the references are there–they’re not rhetorical devices) and come to your own conclusions. That’s the whole point of doing science.

   While many of the Talk.Origins contributors are not religious, some are in fact Christians. Wes Elsberry in particular is an evangelical Christian. These do believe the Bible, and they’re persuaded that the genre of Gen. 1-11 demands that it be interpreted figuratively. There’s really no conflict between mainstream science and Christianity; there are only conflicts between mainstream science and contrafactual interpretations of the Bible (much like Luther and Calvin’s arguments from Joshua 10 and Psalm 93.1, respectively, that Copernicus was wrong about the earth not being the center of the universe).

   Leighton

4. Roger Says:
   February 26th, 2005 at 9:13 pm

   Let’s not put God into a scientific box limited by the finite reasoning skills of man. God gives us what we need to know, not necessarily all that we want to know. When we take our God-given reasoning skills and end up using it against Him, then we have gone astray.

   >It’s not a question of trusting Scientists (PBUT) and clinging to their views, nor is it a question of finding the Answer and clinging to it in perpetuity. If you trust their opinions and they change their opinions, so can you. It’s not a big deal.

   Here’s a thought, if science changes their view to agree with the Bible, would you simply change your opinion with it or would something inside of you balk at that? Don’t answer that right away…really think about it for a while. How would you react? That is my point - that this is not merely an intellectual pursuit of following the evidence where it leads…rather there is a spiritual side that shouldn’t be ignored - although, sadly, it usually is.

5. Leighton Says:
   February 27th, 2005 at 12:29 am

   Let’s not put God into a scientific box limited by the finite reasoning skills of man. God gives us what we need to know, not necessarily all that we want to know. When we take our God-given reasoning skills and end up using it against Him, then we have gone astray.

   What are you talking about? The point of science isn’t to attack God. It’s to see what the universe (creation, if you like) has to say about itself. Do you think that Luther and Calvin were wrong to argue against a heliocentric solar system based on their interpretations of Scripture? If so, why?

   Here’s a thought, if science changes their view to agree with the Bible, would you simply change your opinion with it or would something inside of you balk at that? Don’t answer that right away…really think about it for a while. How would you react? That is my point - that this is not merely an intellectual pursuit of following the evidence where it leads…rather there is a spiritual side that shouldn’t be ignored - although, sadly, it usually is.

   “Science” doesn’t change “their” [sic] view to agree with things. Evidence is evaluated using the best available models. Things change, yes; that’s because we’re finite creatures who will never know all there is to know about the universe. If new, better evidence came to light that supported young-earth Biblical models (and make no mistake, there are mainstream Christian interpretations of the Bible that do not conflict with mainstream science in any way), I would have no problem changing my views. No scientist would. And no offense, but if you think otherwise, you haven’t been reading much by actual scientists.

   May I ask you a question? What works have you read on the creation/evolution issue?

6. Leighton Says:
   February 27th, 2005 at 11:24 am

   Upon rereading this discussion, I realized that I may have been misinterpreting you from step one. I don’t want us to be on different pages, if that’s at all possible to avoid. If you’ll indulge me, would be willing to answer a couple of questions about what you meant?

   1. What was your emphasis in the initial post? On the continuum between “This stuff is legitimately interesting” and “Look at the ridiculous horse**** these idiots have come up with”, where did your tone fall? I can’t tell whether it’s sincere, neutral or ironic.

   2. How important is this issue to you? If you’re not very interested in coming to understand what they think or why they think it, I don’t want to be sucking up your time.

7. Roger Says:
   February 28th, 2005 at 5:42 pm

   Sorry if I haven’t been very clear on this. My interest in this has been observing the folks in science and seeing where they are coming from spiritually. What interested me in this paper was their theological and philosophical points that they made. What are they trying to accomplish by commenting on this in the first place? For what it’s worth, I felt that their conclusions showed an inclination to not take God at His word. That’s a spiritual problem, not a problem of research and analysis. So, I wonder. What kind of worldviews do they have? What views of God do they have and is it consistent with Scripture? Unfortunately as with most of the things I’ve read like this, there appears to be a somewhat cynical view of God and His nature at work here.

8. Leighton Says:
   February 28th, 2005 at 11:36 pm

   Trying to figure out where scientists are coming from spiritually is a lot like trying to figure out where plumbers are coming from spiritually. It really depends on the person.

   . What are they trying to accomplish by commenting on this in the first place?

   The intentions behind the website are stated clearly in the Welcome page, but here’s a quick summary. Talk.Origins is a Usenet newsgroup that’s been discussing evolutionary biology for around ten years now, and many of its contributors are actual biologists, paleontologists and geologists. The purpose of the Talk.Origins archive is to store articles and information that come up in the newsgroup discussions often enough that it’s worth putting them online so that people don’t have to repeat themselves.

   For what it’s worth, I felt that their conclusions showed an inclination to not take God at His word. That’s a spiritual problem, not a problem of research and analysis.

   Can you be more specific? For instance, someone might argue that you’re not taking God at his word because you don’t insist that the sun rotates around the earth; look at Joshua 10 and Psalm 93.1. (I don’t personally think this, but Luther and Calvin would think you’re not taking God at his word.) Why don’t these passages say Copernicus is wrong? (Or do they?)

   So, I wonder. What kind of worldviews do they have? What views of God do they have and is it consistent with Scripture?

   If this is your primary interest, you won’t find what you’re looking for at Talk.Origins, which deals primarily with evidence and analysis. If you like, I can track down some websites that talk about faith in the context of this issue. If you find Glenn Morton’s story interesting, I’ll post more like it, otherwise I can link to sites with a different emphasis. (Assuming you have the time, of course. I understand if you’re busy.)

   Unfortunately as with most of the things I’ve read like this, there appears to be a somewhat cynical view of God and His nature at work here.

   To me, this comment sounds more than somewhat cynical. I think a good general rule for everyone is to try to focus past the tone to perceive the substance of the comment. Sometimes I think that’s really the only hope people have for communication.

   Bear in mind too that (at least in the context of this thread), what we’ve been talking about is one particular article by one particular author. While Mark Isaak is certainly a well-respected contributor to Talk.Origins, there are plenty of other contributors who each have their own tone, emphasis and presentation style. Psychoanalyzing an author based on one essay is almost always a bad idea, but generalizing it to an entire group of people is even more fallacious.

9. Roger Says:
   March 1st, 2005 at 7:27 pm

   >Trying to figure out where scientists are coming from spiritually is a lot like trying to figure out where plumbers are coming from spiritually. It really depends on the person.

   When they communicate and write on topics such as theology and the Bible as they have here, it is very helpful in determining what they believe. Granted, they just have to believe in Jesus Christ to be saved, but what Christ said in John 5:45-47 can be insightful here.

   >Can you be more specific? For instance, someone might argue that you’re not taking God at his word because you don’t insist that the sun rotates around the earth; look at Joshua 10 and Psalm 93.1. (I don’t personally think this, but Luther and Calvin would think you’re not taking God at his word.) Why don’t these passages say Copernicus is wrong? (Or do they?)

   Sure. The author states:
   >In fact, is there any reason at all why the Flood story should be taken literally? Jesus used parables; why wouldn’t God do so, too?
   Nowhere are we given a reason not to interpret the Biblical account as an actual historical event. Furthermore, Jesus references it in the NT as such…
   Matthew 24:37-39
   Also, Peter mentions it in 2 Peter 3:5-6

   I agree with your personal opinion of Joshua 10 and Ps 93:1. I don’t see how those verses caused a problem to begin with. Nowhere else in Scripture are we given reason to take those verses literally instead of looking at the proper context and meaning.

   The writer here is mistaken when he assumes that the Bible should be read like a formula or something (If your style of Biblical interpretation makes you take the Flood literally). We shouldn’t read the Bible literally, we should read it in context.

   >To me, this comment sounds more than somewhat cynical. I think a good general rule for everyone is to try to focus past the tone to perceive the substance of the comment. Sometimes I think that’s really the only hope people have for communication.

   Here’s some comments that led me to that…

   Second, the whole story can be dismissed as a series of supernatural miracles. There is no way to contradict such an argument. However, one must wonder about a God who reportedly does one thing and then arranges every bit of evidence to make it look like something else happened. It’s entirely possible that a global flood occurred 4000 years ago or even last Thursday, and that God subsequently erased all the evidence, including our memories of it. But even if such stories are true, what’s the point?

   Why should we give credence to a story whose most ardent supporters abandon when it’s inconvenient?

   Nobody comes to belief in something by taking another person’s word for it. They have to experience it for themselves. Is the writer absolving himself from being responsible for making a decision because of his complaints with other people’s accounts? Like I’ve said before, truth is still true even if nobody believes it, so it’s wise to base our beliefs on the truth instead of emotional responses. If we don’t know what truth is, shouldn’t we be concerned that we find out before our life is over? Research (and curiosity) demands that we dig deeper than just Genesis and when we do that we see the issue of truth addressed.

   Does the Flood story indicate an omnipotent God?
   If God is omnipotent, why not kill what He wanted killed directly? Why resort to a roundabout method that requires innumerable additional miracles?
   The whole idea was to rid the wicked people from the world. Did it work?

   Can we know the mind of God? Do we know better than God? This is what I meant by the ’scientific box’ statement I made earlier.

   later,
   Roger

Leave a Reply

Name (required)

Mail (will not be published) (required)

Website