I posted this as a response at another blog and thought I'd bring it over here for consideration...
There were two fellas arguing one day over Aesop's Fables.
"Is!" shouted one.
"Isn't!" shouted the other.
A third fella happened along. "What are you arguing about?" he asked.
"Bob here thinks that Aesop's fables have factually incorrect information in them! Can you imagine!"
"Yes, what of it? Ralph here thinks that grasshopper and ants actually talk, like they did in Aesop's story! How ridiculous!"
On and on they argued. Ralph insisting that the facts in Aesop's stories are literally and factually true, while Bob rejecting such a scientifically implausible proposition.
"Tell me," said the third fella, "What is the point of the Ant and the Grasshopper story?"
"To save," said Ralph.
"To work hard," said Bob.
"To be prudent and wise," they both said together!
"So," the third fella asked, "what sort of stories ARE Aesop's Fables?"
"Stories of Wisdom," they answered.
"Does it matter to the Truth of the story, Ralph, whether the ant and grasshopper actually talked?" he asked.
"Yes!" Ralph insisted. At first. "Well, not to the larger Truths, no, but if the facts aren't right, how do we know the Truths are right??"
"Bob, if the ant and grasshopper DID talk, would that impact the Truth of the story?"
"Well, no," said Bob. "But it would defy the laws of science as we know them!"
"Wouldn't it be wiser, then, to consider the Fables to be stories of Truth, regardless of facts? In fact, isn't arguing about the little facts causing you to miss altogether the WHOLE POINT of the stories?"
======
Or, looking at it another way: We generally recognize that some of the books of the bible are poetry, some are proverbs, some tell history stories. And we further recognize that each type of book and story needs to be interpreted just a bit differently (maybe a lot differently), right?
Well, is it not true that the Bible as a whole is a book of Wisdom? It was not written as a science book to be read with an eye to empirical evidence so much, right? It was not written as a history book with a detailed eye on dates and names, yes?
It is a Wisdom Book, a Book of Truths. The reality that the world was NOT created in six days in no way diminishes the Truth of God's creation of the world, unless we allow it to diminish it for ourselves.
31 comments:
I'll save your detractors the effort (plus my comment is 100X shorter than theirs would be)...
Heretic.
There, that's done.
:)
Did you hear about Arizona State Senator, Sylvia Allen (R) who believes that the world is 6000 years old? (She was speaking against environmental laws, natch.) ARIZONA!? I mean, isn't there a pretty obvious big ol' hunk o' evidence right there in that very state which demonstrates that the Earth isn't 6000 years old? The name escapes me, but I think it's some sort of really big, huge, um ... canyon.
Sheesh people are stupid.
It was not written as a science book to be read with an eye to empirical evidence so much, right?
Well, except in the creation story where the world was created from nothing. Took almost 2000 years for science to come to the realization that before the Big Bang wasn't just a bunch of matter, but, physically, nothing; just energy. And perhaps before that, even less. Lots of science we know today actually was buried in the Bible. No, not primarily a science textbook, but that doesn't mean that you can't look to it for some scientific answers.
It was not written as a history book with a detailed eye on dates and names, yes?
Somebody's not read the book of Numbers in a while, I'm guessing. No, not primarily a history book, but that doesn't mean you can't look to it for some historical answers.
There have been a number of scientific and historical references in the Bible that scholars have brushed off, only to return to them when they found such proof as they were prepared to accept. I'm, frankly, open-minded on they young vs old Earth business, but I'm not brushing off the Bible as a book of fables.
Is the resurrection just an allegory? A fable, trying to get a larger point across? Paul thought it was absolutely true and necessary, but when you start to decide what is factual and what isn't, choosing wrong can, in some cases, mean some really bad theology.
You write "the world was NOT created in six days" just like someone decades ago would have said "the universe was NOT created out of nothing; not a single material atom at all". I'm just saying.
In other cases, as I said years ago to someone trying to bind me up in his definition of "literalist", "Yes, King David literally wrote poetry."
And indeed, Alan's comment is 100x shorter than mine.
"Took almost 2000 years for science to come to the realization that before the Big Bang wasn't just a bunch of matter, but, physically, nothing; just energy. And perhaps before that, even less."
Heh. So much so wrong in so few words. Well done. ;)
http://www.daviddarling.info/encyclopedia/B/Big_Bang.html
The current thought is that the Big Bang not only created matter, but space and time itself. (And energy as well, so that part of what I said was wrong.) Nonetheless, pretty much ex nihilo.
Now, again, the Bible is no textbook on the subject, but creating something out of nothing is now what science is saying, vs what used to be the idea of ever-existing space and matter.
"Is the resurrection just an allegory? A fable, trying to get a larger point across? Paul thought it was absolutely true and necessary, but when you start to decide what is factual and what isn't, choosing wrong can, in some cases, mean some really bad theology."
And yet Paul, when writing about the resurrection many years prior to the the earliest gospel writing, makes no mention of the empty tomb. Is it possible that Paul knew the resurrection to be true but had no need of an empty tomb? And can't the empty tomb stories thus be viewed as theological truth couched in historical narrative?
Hey, if all of someone's assumptions are true, anything is possible.
"part of what I said was wrong"
At least. LOL Glad you got some info off a website somewhere to help correct at least one of your errors.
"but creating something out of nothing is now what science is saying, vs what used to be the idea of ever-existing space and matter."
Thank you for the example which shows the fact that science corrects its mistakes rather than relying on unchanging dogma. That is one of the reasons it is reliable as a means for understanding the universe.
Alan, I think you missed my larger point, dealing specifically with Dan's post, that science has ultimately come around to what the Bible has said all along; that the universe was created literally out of nothing.
I'm thrilled that science is figuring out the "how" of what happened physically, but the point is that it used to say something contrary to the Bible and now it says something in harmony with it, as it acquires more information.
Passing judgment on the Bible because it differs from current scientific or historical thought has been a losing proposition throughout history.
Actually science doesn't say something in harmony with the Bible. The universe is not 6000 years old.
Anyway, I didn't miss your larger point. I don't think one can accurately describe how science does or does not agree with the Bible if one don't understand either one of them.
And, BTW, passing judgement on science because it differs from religious dogma has been a losing proposition throughout history too. Ask Galileo.
"that the universe was created literally out of nothing."
BTW, still wrong.
I would suggest some of the books by Brian Greene (eg. "Elegant Universe") or Paul Davies (eg. "God and the New Physics") Both write accessibly about cosmology and are entertaining as well.
It's all to complicated to go into in a blog comment, so I won't bother. But I will say that one reason some of your understandings are mistaken is because that it makes no sense to say there was nothing before the Big Bang because there was no "before" the Big Bang. According to theory, the Big Bang produced space-time. You can't have a "before" which happens before time started.
Another problem is that you appear to be thinking too literally about cause and effect, both of which are notions that have essentially no meaning on a quantum level.
Actually science doesn't say something in harmony with the Bible. The universe is not 6000 years old.
I didn't say that science said that. Please read my comments again. I'm talking about the creation of the universe out of nothing, which science didn't buy until relatively recently. Science has moved into harmony with the Bible on this point. Please don't read into it more than what I said.
Ask Galileo.
Indeed, a good counterexample, showing that both sides need to respect the other's methods, and hence my open mind on the 6,000 years issue. Nonetheless, the Bible (vs. say religious tradition) has been very resilient in this.
You can't have a "before" which happens before time started.
Again, "indeed". This concept, though, of the Big Bang creating time itself is, again, relatively recent. And it actually aids in understanding how a Creator exists outside of time, because we're beginning to understand that time could be created. Again, harmonizing with the Bible.
Heard a good line many years ago about how when the scientist finally climbs that last hill of discovery, he'll find the theologian already there. I'd add, "but the theologian won't know how he got there; he just believed that's where he was." The Bible doesn't say how God physically created time and space from nothing, except that He spoke. Apparently, his Word is reality enough. (Which is something that could apply, again, to the original purpose of Dan's post.)
"Heard a good line many years ago about how when the scientist finally climbs that last hill of discovery, he'll find the theologian already there."
You mean like the theologians who believed in a geocentric universe? Or the theologians who believe that dinosaurs and man co-existed? Or the theologians who believe that the universe is 6000 years old?
If he's there, he's blindfolded.
Trying to mix science with the creation of the universe is impossible. Science is the defined as the study of cause and effect. Creation, The Big Bang whatever you call it was an effect without a cause.
On that same point the age or the earth doesn’t make sense from either a creationist or scientific point of view.
Creationists believe the earth is very young. If it is then how are we able to see stars that are millions of light years away?
Evolutionists believe the earth is very old. 4.7 billion years. Problem is Newton’s law causes the earth to rotate slower and slower, if you reverse that by even 1 billion years it would have been shaped like a football and a few millions degrees. Hardly an environment for our ancestors to evolve into us.
A creationist would have to conclude that the method God used to create the universe was instantaneous, plus the undefined time Adam and Eve lived before falling into sin.
A “Scientist/Evolutionist” would have to conclude that the universe doesn’t exist.
"Evolutionists", Edwin?
God, these people are so dumb, they need cue cards to remind them to breathe.
Science is not "defined" as the study of "cause and effect".
Again, ignorance compounded by stupidity breeds comedy.
I do so hope neither of you people teach, because I feel sorry for any students you may have.
" Science is the defined as the study of cause and effect."
Since quantum mechanics, cause and effect ain't what they used to be.
Second problem is that Newton, as brilliant as his ideas were, have been outdated for about the last 50 years.
While it is true that Newton's laws predict that the earth's rotation on its axis has slowed, the amount is tiny. 500 million years ago, a day was 21 hours long. Where you got your information that the earth would be completely football shaped is a mystery, but my guess is that you should read reliable information, not stupid websites.
As for a young earth, according to well established physical laws, it takes photons formed at the center of the Sun nearly 10,000 years to reach the corona due to the Sun's massive gravity. In other words, if the earth really were 6000 years old, no light from the sun would have reached us yet.
It would be helpful if people who spoke as if they were experts about science actually understood it.
There are real and interesting discussions that can be had regarding the differences between cosmology and Judeo-Christian interpretations of creation. However, it certainly helps if people have at least a rudimentary understanding of both science and the Bible.
Thanks for the comments, fellas.
And I'd ask my friends to please not to call names. If you think someone is stupid, then there's no real need to point it out.
Sorry I've no thoughts on the science commentary, it's a bit past my pay grade.
For what it's worth, this wasn't so much a post on Creationism as it was on the problems of reading the Bible literally.
I apologize, Dan. Seriously. I'm sorry.
I understand the intent of your post, but so do those who write of "evolutionists" (as if there were such a group of persons) and "football shaped earths".
Alan's example of the physics of a photon through the sun is good. Using creationist logic, one could posit that, at 6,000 years, God not only created all that is, but the photons in transit for the appearance of age (all those galaxies hundreds of millions of light years away). Yet, using that same logic, the Universe could have been created only at this moment, our memories only and illusion created by God to give existence the appearance of permanence and temporal existence.
I am currently reading a massive introduction to the history and development of biology, and it is far more interesting and informative than any amount of crap any creationist could try and convince me is in the Bible.
"For what it's worth, this wasn't so much a post on Creationism as it was on the problems of reading the Bible literally."
Indeed. And as you point out, the key is knowing what was meant to be taken literally and what was not. I assume that, in spite of the Psalmist's words to the contrary, God is not a big chicken who shelters us under his wings.
One can simultaneously believe that God created the universe, and yet accept scientific theories as the best explanation for how the universe was formed. They're not mutually exclusive, and they're not contradictory, they simply don't have anything to do with each other.
----one last thing-----
So Science is not the study of cause and effect???
Since science and "cause and effect" apparently have no relationship then physics of any kind doesn't exist as I'm sure we all know that the underlying principle of physics is causality.
Newton’s laws no longer apply???
I went outside and threw a baseball. Not only did its spin decrease (at an accelerated rate) but the ball stopped, it would seem Newton’s laws are still intact.
GKS, I'm sorry to break this to you but the earth is an oblate spheroid that means it's polar axis are shorter than its diameter at the center. (AKA a football) it’s that way because it spins (Newton’s laws again). Reverse that spin at an accelerated rate for few billion years and things change dramatically, especially if you’re trying to maintain oxygen, atmosphere, a moon, land masses and other trivial characteristics of our planet.
All I’m saying is that you’re too quick to throw out instantaneous creation for 4+ Billion year creation. It would seem you do so only to dimmish the Bible, probably for the reason to re-interpret other parts of the Bible as well.
*sigh*
If you can't read, why should I bother explaining physics to you?
No one said that Newton's laws "don't apply", genius. I said that they have been superseded by newer theories, relativity, for example. On simple day to day things like baseballs, Newton's laws are fine. But for many cosmological notions (as well as quantum mechanical ones) they fail completely.
Yes, the earth is slightly oblong, no one said it isn't. Please show us the equations you've worked out that demonstrate that the effect should be greater than it is observed, thus disproving a 4.5 billion year old Earth.
I'm pretty sure if you could prove it you'd win yourself a trip to Stockholm.
Look. We know the speed of light. We know it very, very, very accurately. We understand red-shift. We understand how to measure distances between stars. Heck, the ancient Greeks were doing that thousands of years ago (... er, sorry ... 2 or 3 years ago for you) and it only requires some basic trigonometry (sorry, is that word too big for you?) It really isn't that hard to figure out the age of the universe from that little bit of data alone. If you think that those calculations are wrong, post your own calculations on your blog and show us and the world how wrong we've all been.
That's how science works. You think you've disproven the theory, then disprove it. Put up or shut up. Just making random claims without any evidence to back it up is not convincing.
"as I'm sure we all know that the underlying principle of physics is causality. "
LOL. You've clearly never heard of quantum entanglement? Einstein called it "spooky action at a distance." Nor have you ever heard of quantum tunneling. Or the Heisenberg uncertainty principle. Causality is great for typical macroscopic phenomena. But it falls apart completely at the quantum level.
As I wrote in a previous thread, I just don't get what the trolls get out of trolling. Nor do I understand why someone would not only troll, but so completely expose their complete and utter lack of understanding. Do they enjoy being shown to be so pathetically inept? What do they get out of it, I wonder? Attention, I guess. But it seems like getting a puppy would be far more rewarding.
Edwin, I am currently reading a massive history of biology. One of the underlying principles of the author - a professor of zoology at Harvard named Ernst Mayr - is that the philosophical principles of biology and physics are fundamentally different, and not interchangeable. Even if one could say "science is the study of cause and effect", what would that mean to a scientific enterprise that is characterized by its qualitative dimension far more than its quantitative?
As for the shape of the earth, I'm not even sure what point you are trying to make. It's like you're speaking Urdu or something.
Of course, there's always Bell's Theorem (for which he won a Nobel Prize). That states that because every eigenstate that is possible cannot be logically eliminated, every possible eigenstate of necessity exists. In other words, every nanosecond since the Big Bang, in which elementary particles change their position and spin generates a kind of parallelism; the number of potential parallel universes is, at this point, for all intents and purposes, infinite.
I sometimes wonder if, like Edwin Schrodinger making fun of quantum physics with his dead/alive cat, yet capturing the essence of the absurdity of quantum physics, if Bell wasn't also making fun of quantum mechanics, yet describing something accurately as well.
In any event, Edwin, even Newton wrote - in a letter to his only real friend, and the man principally responsible for the publication of the Principia, Edmund Halley - that he wondered if there were a place in the Universe at perfect rest. Even he recognized the principle of relativity; it would take a few hundred years, and discrepancies in the data not accounted for in the original theories to discover that, in essence, Newton's physics is a kind of special case embedded within a larger Einsteinian Universe. Newton's laws break down the closer one gets to the speed of light until, as Stephen Hawking wrote about, they might actually reverse themselves at hyperlight speeds (were such possible; the existence of tachyons - elementary particles that do, indeed, travel faster than the speed of light - would seem to suggest at least a theoretical possibility, although I wouldn't want to try it). I'm not sure who said it, but the universe is not only queerer than we imagine, it's queerer than we can imagine.
Human beings have been studying this stuff in a rigorous, systematic way for only about 350 years of so. The Universe, approaching the 15 billion or so year mark, has the edge on us, I do believe.
Which is why there is an element of metaphor, and awe, in my approach to both physics and the Bible. Only in different ways.
Well said Geoffery, my only point is that Old Earth draws criticism when take into account its rate of motion. Rewind it and things fall apart (literately). That being said I don’t claim to understand the universe and all of complexities, for that reason I feel compelled to ask questions and enjoy these debates.
Excuse me for a moment.
Alan , it is sad to see someone as dumb as yourself claiming to be smart. I will spell it out for you. Newtonian physics claim that objects, space, and time behave the same way no matter where they are. Theory of Relativity claims object’s behavior can be influenced by mass, energy and momentum. It would strengthen your argument to accept Newtonian physics that way you can easily determine the age of the universe and all that other crap you spewed out.
Quantum entanglement or quantum anything is totally irrelevant. You’re just too stupid to know that because everything you used was cut and pasted from answers.com. Problem is you don’t even know what you arguing about anymore. Here’s a hint: I’m discussing object behavior on a planetary scale and you are talking about sub-atomic particles. Then in an act of totally ignorance you point out a well known paradox that does nothing to explain why suddenly gravity from the sun no longer applies to the earth.
In my first comment I pointed out that neither Young Earth or Old Earth arguments are perfect. You start pmsing and randomly cutting and pasting useless crap from websites you don’t understand. Get off your parents computer and at least finish community college before you try to pretend to be smart.
ROFL.
"It would strengthen your argument to accept Newtonian physics"
Actually genius, I never said I didn't accept Newtonian physics. I said that it works great for normal every-day objects.
See, this is where I said that: "On simple day to day things like baseballs, Newton's laws are fine. "
Now I know reading is tough for you, so I don't mind repeating myself.
Then I said that Newtonian physics fails at the very big, very small, and very fast parts of the universe. Which is why we have relativity for the very big things and quantum mechanics for the very small things.
Sorry, I know Geoffrey and I are using words that are too big for you.
In that pile of bovine excrement you got exactly one thing right: that you don't understand the universe. Or anything else.
Nice try though. LOL
BTW, Eddie, just how many papers in Chemistry do you have published? How many invited talks have you given at conferences and symposia both nationally and internationally? How many years have you been teaching chemistry at a Big 10 University? How many degrees in chemistry and engineering and biology do you have? How many credit hours of astronomy and earth science and geology have you taken (at a community college or anywhere else? (I'll give you a little free advice, buddy. Everyone here now thinks you're a total moron because they know my credentials and we can all guess at yours.)
(BTW, though I've never attended a community college, I think they're great. They can serve as an excellent way for people to get a good education. Not everyone can afford, or even needs to attend a major research university. Truly you should avail yourself of one of them, if for no other reason than to learn to read and write.)
I notice that you haven't yet posted your observations and findings about the age of the Earth on your blog. Surely you'll be doing that soon, right? I mean, just to show us all how stupid I am, what better way than demonstrating it by showing the conclusive proof you say you have? ;)
Again, I ask a serious question ... Why would you come here just to make yourself look like a total tool? I honestly want to know what you get out of looking like a complete and total idiot?
Gentlemen, behave.
Edwin, Alan's a scientist and strikes me as an extremely smart fella, if sometimes a bit impatient. Always funny, though. I am always cautious about stating too much, too authoritatively around people who are more well-versed in a given area or topic than I am.
I think that's wise advice for any of us.
And on a wholly unrelated note, I agree with Alan. Community Colleges are great things. I got my start at one before going on to a university. Great way to save money and test the waters if you're not sure about college.
Thanks Dan. Yes, I know I shouldn't engage the trolls, it just gives them the attention they crave. But sometimes it is fun to poke them with a stick just to see how deep their ignorance goes -- apparently right to the bone.
BTW, if anyone ever feels that I'm plagiarizing information from another website by just "randomly cutting and pasting useless crap from websites" that I don't understand, that's easy enough to prove. Simply do a google search on the suspicious phrases, then post a comment with those phrases and the site from which I stole it. So easy a child could do it.
In other words, trolls, put up or shut up.
And if no evidence is forthcoming, I'll be happy to accept an apology. I'm sure anyone so willing to embarrass themselves by lying so willfully will be at least as willing to apologize for those lies. After all, it's the Christian thing to do. :)
But I won't hold my breath.
Have a great weekend!
I don't mind talking to "the trolls," myself Alan, or you talking with them. I love your wisdom, humor and most of what you add when you comment here.
So, asking "put up or shut up," is fine with me. It's the "I know Geoffrey and I are using words that are too big for you..." type of stuff I'd ask you to tone down.
Not as a favor to them, for many of them deserve it at times, but as a favor to me. I'd like to try to keep it mostly polite here, even when others are rude.
Confrontational is fine. Calling a comment or idea ignorant if it is ignorant is fine. But I don't see much value in calling somebody "stupid," even if their comments sometimes are.
"Sheesh people are stupid." - Alan
Did you also hear that there is a growing body of true evidence that suggests that umm... the place which name remains unwritten...could very possibly have carved out in a matter of weeks or months as an inland sea breached?
Sheep people are stupid. You almost got it right.
Sheep people who are not able to think for themselves but just take the word of others with a clear political agenda as fact.
But that's the way of liberals, ain't it? Can't get around that observable scientific fact.
"Sheep people who are not able to think for themselves but just take the word of others with a clear political agenda as fact."
Couldn't agree more, and thanks for making my point. You're correct that there are theories that say that the Grand Canyon may have been carved out from an inland sea breach several million years ago, rather than being carved out over tens of millions of years by the Colorado River. Nothing new about that theory, it's been around for decades. However, as I'm sure you realize, having studied the scientific data carefully, neither theory supports a 6000 year old Earth, as the Arizona Senator incorrectly stated based on her political agenda. Thank you for confirming what I already wrote.
See Eddie? Even people with very different viewpoints can agree when they think for themselves. When even your cronies agree with me it must be pretty embarrassing for you to be so roundly schooled from every direction.
(BTW, Eddie, I can't help but notice that you still haven't published your finding regarding the age of the earth here, nor have you published evidence that I plagiarize. I guess when it comes to put up or shut up, you at least do the wise thing and shut up when you have no evidence.)
I agree with the previous commenter that you should start thinking for yourself -- examining the scientific data for yourself, as we have. Regardless of our political agenda, we both recognize all the evidence that exists that shows that the earth is not 6000 years old. You should do the same.
yo bro cool parable
in the beginning was the Logos
the Logos is God
What is the Logos? God/Word is Love
and for the parisees among us
in the letters in red Iove IS the greatest commandment
FIRST perfect this commandment then we will move on to which parts of scriptures are methaphors and which parts are not. Because ALL believe certain parts of bible are methaphors or symbolic - i.e. - "Sons of God came down and impregnat females" or somehow some churches rationiize that " a deacon should be a man of not much drink" should be interperted as NO drink like God does not know the word NO?!
as Jesus said " i come drinking and you call me a drunk- john the baptist comes not drinking and you call him crazy! But i guess you (phrisees) can rationalize awy your wisdom.
Hey, that's my own Big Brother talking there! How's it going?
Thanks for stopping in to say howdy. Come back anytime...
Post a Comment