Early Genesis Interpretations Agreed With Darwin

[Plu]

This is very misleading. It ignores the fact that the Muslim Golden Age occurred during this time span, during which there were VERY significant developments in Mathematics, Astronomy and [especially] Medicine. It is entirely because of some great thinkers in the Middle East (Baghdad) that we even have translations of ancient Greek thinkers (namely Aristotle) at all. And the term "Dark Ages" is of French origin and is very much too leading.

Yeah, I was afraid it wouldn't show a total picture. It might be fairly inaccurate, especially considering the muslim golden age. It should start rising a little before the rennaisance, I guess.  And not stay totally flat. It's excaggarated. But the basic concept of a hole in science I guess remains, if you compare what people knew and built and tried in the roman and greek ages.

[Brian37]

Why was this thread created? To say that theist try to retrofit science to fit their fiction?

Look, I feel no need to comment other than to say that book was written in a scientifically ignorant age by dumb goat herders, and it has absolutely no basis in any modern scientific reality because that book is not and never will be a science textbook.

It is pointless to even discuss this and plays right into the hands of desperate theists who want the earth to be flat after we know now it is not.

DONT FEED THE FUNDIES

[Davka]

Darwin's theory is every bit as unsettling as that of Copernicus 4 centuries earlier, and for the same reason: it removes Homo Sapiens from their imaginary throne at the center of the Universe. The average idiot does not like to be reminded of her own insignificance in the Cosmic scheme of things.

This is one of THE biggest myths regarding Science and Religion. Anti-Heliocentricity was not about placing humans at the center of the Universe in an exhalted way. As you may know, Aristotle taught that heavier things fall faster than lighter things. Aristotle also taught that heavenly bodies were made of a 5th, lighter element he called "aether". Hence Earth, being at the center, was because it had all of the heavy elements. The religious took this to infer the uncleanliness of the Earth. Also, some of the earliest, biggest supporters of Darwinian evolution were clergymen. Some of their support came from the reasoning that a Creator who could make living being who could develop into greater/more complex living being was a greater Creator than one who simply made species-static creatures.

I recommend reading a book called "Galileo Goes to Jail". Goes over and corrects many myths regarding the relationship between Science and Religion, from Darwin's suppose conversion to Christianity on his deathbed, to the Galileo business. Fun read. :)

Um - I wrote about Copernicus, not Galileo. And Copernicus' heliocentric Solar System was initially rejected because it went against the idea that the Universe was a series of concentric spheres, fixed in place with Earth as the center. While not explicitly stated, at least one reason this would be upsetting to humans is that by removing Earth from the center of God's Universe, we remove it also from the center of God's attention.

The earliest objections to Copernican Heliocentrism were based on a combination of this "scientific" belief (geocentric spheres) and Biblical interpretation:

Melanchthon published his Initia Doctrinae Physicae presenting three grounds to reject Copernicanism, these were "the evidence of the senses, the thousand-year consensus of men of science, and the authority of the Bible". Blasting the new theory Melanchthon wrote "Out of love for novelty or in order to make a show of their cleverness, some people have argued that the earth moves. They maintain that neither the eighth sphere nor the sun moves, whereas they attribute motion to the other celestial spheres, and also place the earth among the heavenly bodies. Nor were these jokes invented recently. There is still extant Archimedes' book on The sand-reckoner; in which he reports that Aristarchus of Samos propounded the paradox that the sun stands still and the earth revolves around the sun. Even though subtle experts institute many investigations for the sake of exercising their ingenuity, nevertheless public proclamation of absurd opinions is indecent and sets a harmful example." Melanchthon went on to cite Bible passages and then declare "Encouraged by this divine evidence, let us cherish the truth and let us not permit ourselves to be alienated from it by the tricks of those who deem it an intellectual honor to introduce confusion into the arts."

In Roman Catholic circles, German Jesuit Nicolaus Serarius was one of the first to write against Copernicus' theory as heretical, citing the Joshua passage, in a work published in 1609–1610, and again in a book in 1612.

In his 12 April 1615 letter to a Catholic defender of Copernicus, Paolo Antonio Foscarini, Catholic Cardinal Robert Bellarmine condemned Copernican theory, writing "...not only the Holy Fathers, but also the modern commentaries on Genesis, the Psalms, Ecclesiastes, and Joshua, you will find all agreeing in the literal interpretation that the sun is in heaven and turns around the earth with great speed, and that the earth is very far from heaven and sits motionless at the center of the world...Nor can one answer that this is not a matter of faith, since if it is not a matter of faith 'as regards the topic,' it is a matter of faith 'as regards the speaker': and so it would be heretical to say that Abraham did not have two children and Jacob twelve, as well as to say that Christ was not born of a virgin, because both are said by the Holy Spirit through the mouth of prophets and apostles."

[AxisMundi]

The idea that human beings were incapable of grasping such concepts as billions of years during the time that the bible was written is highly insulting, and shows a certain lack of historical knowledge. We speak of people who were far more advanced in science, architecture, engineering, medicine, philosophy, metallurgy, navigation, mathematics et cetera ad nauseam than people were during the medieval ages a thousand years later. All thanks to the quashing of science and the scientific principles conducted by the Church.

This is nonsense. The stories in the OT Bible were told by nomadic goat-herders, embellished and passed down over centuries before finally being written down. Claiming that Hebrew tribes were more scientifically advanced than medieval Europeans is simply wrong. Both groups were equally ignorant and superstitious.

Genesis was written by people who thought what was written was factual.

On what do you base this bald assertion?

And Darwin never set out to challenge the Creation Myth, nor does his work form the only argument for evolution. He is simply an easy target for those who have nothing to challenge the Evolution Theory other than their faith in their scriptures. Scripture, mind you, that are easily disproved.

And that is ignoring the little fact that Darwin proposed a hypothesis concerning Evolution, and not Abiogensis, a different scientific discipline.

The problem that Christians have with Darwin remains the same regardless of the distinction between evolution and abiogenesis. If Homo Sapiens and apes evolved from a common ancestor, then humans are no longer "special." We're not God's Favorite, we're just another animal - which means that Biblical concepts such as "having dominion over the animals" are meaningless.

Darwin's theory is every bit as unsettling as that of Copernicus 4 centuries earlier, and for the same reason: it removes Homo Sapiens from their imaginary throne at the center of the Universe. The average idiot does not like to be reminded of her own insignificance in the Cosmic scheme of things.

1. I was speaking of the ancient Greeks and Romans. Plu's graph is a perfect visual aid for you. Try reading before replying.

2. Prove it's a lie.

3. No argument there.

[AxisMundi]

.......Either way, I think we can safely say that the methodology of dating the Earth by way of tales where people lived to be hundreds of years old is slightly suspect.

Quite safe, yes.  :P

[GurrenLagann]

Darwin's theory is every bit as unsettling as that of Copernicus 4 centuries earlier, and for the same reason: it removes Homo Sapiens from their imaginary throne at the center of the Universe. The average idiot does not like to be reminded of her own insignificance in the Cosmic scheme of things.

This is one of THE biggest myths regarding Science and Religion. Anti-Heliocentricity was not about placing humans at the center of the Universe in an exhalted way. As you may know, Aristotle taught that heavier things fall faster than lighter things. Aristotle also taught that heavenly bodies were made of a 5th, lighter element he called "aether". Hence Earth, being at the center, was because it had all of the heavy elements. The religious took this to infer the uncleanliness of the Earth. Also, some of the earliest, biggest supporters of Darwinian evolution were clergymen. Some of their support came from the reasoning that a Creator who could make living being who could develop into greater/more complex living being was a greater Creator than one who simply made species-static creatures.

I recommend reading a book called "Galileo Goes to Jail". Goes over and corrects many myths regarding the relationship between Science and Religion, from Darwin's suppose conversion to Christianity on his deathbed, to the Galileo business. Fun read. :)

Um - I wrote about Copernicus, not Galileo. And Copernicus' heliocentric Solar System was initially rejected because it went against the idea that the Universe was a series of concentric spheres, fixed in place with Earth as the center. While not explicitly stated, at least one reason this would be upsetting to humans is that by removing Earth from the center of God's Universe, we remove it also from the center of God's attention.

The earliest objections to Copernican Heliocentrism were based on a combination of this "scientific" belief (geocentric spheres) and Biblical interpretation:

Melanchthon published his Initia Doctrinae Physicae presenting three grounds to reject Copernicanism, these were "the evidence of the senses, the thousand-year consensus of men of science, and the authority of the Bible". Blasting the new theory Melanchthon wrote "Out of love for novelty or in order to make a show of their cleverness, some people have argued that the earth moves. They maintain that neither the eighth sphere nor the sun moves, whereas they attribute motion to the other celestial spheres, and also place the earth among the heavenly bodies. Nor were these jokes invented recently. There is still extant Archimedes' book on The sand-reckoner; in which he reports that Aristarchus of Samos propounded the paradox that the sun stands still and the earth revolves around the sun. Even though subtle experts institute many investigations for the sake of exercising their ingenuity, nevertheless public proclamation of absurd opinions is indecent and sets a harmful example." Melanchthon went on to cite Bible passages and then declare "Encouraged by this divine evidence, let us cherish the truth and let us not permit ourselves to be alienated from it by the tricks of those who deem it an intellectual honor to introduce confusion into the arts."

In Roman Catholic circles, German Jesuit Nicolaus Serarius was one of the first to write against Copernicus' theory as heretical, citing the Joshua passage, in a work published in 1609–1610, and again in a book in 1612.

In his 12 April 1615 letter to a Catholic defender of Copernicus, Paolo Antonio Foscarini, Catholic Cardinal Robert Bellarmine condemned Copernican theory, writing "...not only the Holy Fathers, but also the modern commentaries on Genesis, the Psalms, Ecclesiastes, and Joshua, you will find all agreeing in the literal interpretation that the sun is in heaven and turns around the earth with great speed, and that the earth is very far from heaven and sits motionless at the center of the world...Nor can one answer that this is not a matter of faith, since if it is not a matter of faith 'as regards the topic,' it is a matter of faith 'as regards the speaker': and so it would be heretical to say that Abraham did not have two children and Jacob twelve, as well as to say that Christ was not born of a virgin, because both are said by the Holy Spirit through the mouth of prophets and apostles."

I'm afraid I don't see where your quote disagrees with me. The main objection to Copernican's Heliocentricity was not that it removed HUMANS from the center of the exhaled universe, since the center was considered unclean and gross. AND it was backed by Aristotlean reasoning on weight.

Oh and your reading too much into the title of the book. It goes over (as I said) 25 myths regarding the relationship/history of Science and Religion.... which is in fact the subtitle I believe.

[AxisMundi]

This is very misleading. It ignores the fact that the Muslim Golden Age occurred during this time span, during which there were VERY significant developments in Mathematics, Astronomy and [especially] Medicine. It is entirely because of some great thinkers in the Middle East (Baghdad) that we even have translations of ancient Greek thinkers (namely Aristotle) at all. And the term "Dark Ages" is of French origin and is very much too leading.

I agree it can be misleading, but more or less accurate within the confines of Europe. However, one cannot argue that the Church did not stamp on the sciences pretty heavily, including medicine, thus causing science to take a few steps backwards in that part of the world. The Arab Golden Age occurred, IMHO, because they were divorced from the Church, and thus were allowed to build on what had come before.

[Plu]

The Arab Golden Age occurred, IMHO, because they were divorced from the Church, and thus were allowed to build on what had come before.

And it died when someone stood up and said "hey, lets stick to this book instead".

[Davka]

1. I was speaking of the ancient Greeks and Romans. Plu's graph is a perfect visual aid for you. Try reading before replying.

The thread title is " Early Genesis Interpretations Agreed With Darwin."

You wrote "The idea that human beings were incapable of grasping such concepts as billions of years during the time that the bible was written is highly insulting . . ."

The part of the Bible under discussion, the Book of Genesis, was likely created circa 1500/2,000 BCE, and committed to writing around ~1,000 BCE. If you look at Plu's chart (which you might consider as a visual aid), you will see that the Book of Genesis pre-dates both the ancient Roman and Greek empires by a significant chunk of time.

You might consider taking your own advice re: reading/replying.

2. Prove it's a lie.

Sorry, bucko, that's not how the Burden of Proof works. You made the assertion, it's up to you to either back it up or retract it.

"Prove it's a lie" is the dodge that dishonest creationists use to try to pass off their bullshit as irrefutable truth. It's hardly the company I'd like to be counted in. YMMV.

[Davka]

I'm afraid I don't see where your quote disagrees with me. The main objection to Copernican's Heliocentricity was not that it removed HUMANS from the center of the exhaled universe, since the center was considered unclean and gross. AND it was backed by Aristotlean reasoning on weight.

The removal of humans from their exalted place at the center of God's creation is never implicitly stated, but it's present in every anti-science complaint from Theists. People can't come from monkey cuz Gawd done created us special, to have dominion over aminals! The earth is gross and sinful, but it's also the center of Gawd's attention, and the purpose for which he created everything else. Therefore it must be the center of the Universe, and anyone who says otherwise is itching for a fight.

All theism is inherently egocentric human posturing. We're not insignificant animals in a vast uncaring cosmos, we're the most important thing in Gawd's Creation! Theologians merely dress up this egotistical viewpoint with lots of pious-sounding humility and self-flagellation, because it would sound way too blatantly prideful to come right out and state what they really think: Gawd's Chosen are second only to Gawd, and the rest of you sinners will BURN, as you well deserve.

[Davka]

Why was this thread created? To say that theist try to retrofit science to fit their fiction?

Look, I feel no need to comment other than to say that book was written in a scientifically ignorant age by dumb goat herders, and it has absolutely no basis in any modern scientific reality because that book is not and never will be a science textbook.

It is pointless to even discuss this and plays right into the hands of desperate theists who want the earth to be flat after we know now it is not.

DONT FEED THE FUNDIES

Actually, the history of Biblical interpretation can be very useful in countering fundy nonsense. Most people (and almost all fundys) are unaware that Biblical Literalism is a very recent invention, adopted primarily as a reaction against the Enlightenment. For most of the history of Christianity and Judaism, a literal reading of scripture would have been considered very, very odd, if not heretical. Fundy need to know that they are clinging to a recent invention of men, not the WordO'Gawd[sup:2hg1p58u]TM[/sup:2hg1p58u].

[AxisMundi]

The Arab Golden Age occurred, IMHO, because they were divorced from the Church, and thus were allowed to build on what had come before.

And it died when someone stood up and said "hey, lets stick to this book instead".

Yup.

[AxisMundi]

1. I was speaking of the ancient Greeks and Romans. Plu's graph is a perfect visual aid for you. Try reading before replying.

The thread title is " Early Genesis Interpretations Agreed With Darwin."

You wrote "The idea that human beings were incapable of grasping such concepts as billions of years during the time that the bible was written is highly insulting . . ."

The part of the Bible under discussion, the Book of Genesis, was likely created circa 1500/2,000 BCE, and committed to writing around ~1,000 BCE. If you look at Plu's chart (which you might consider as a visual aid), you will see that the Book of Genesis pre-dates both the ancient Roman and Greek empires by a significant chunk of time.

You might consider taking your own advice re: reading/replying.

2. Prove it's a lie.

Sorry, bucko, that's not how the Burden of Proof works. You made the assertion, it's up to you to either back it up or retract it.

"Prove it's a lie" is the dodge that dishonest creationists use to try to pass off their bullshit as irrefutable truth. It's hardly the company I'd like to be counted in. YMMV.

1. And? Your point? You did not reply to what I posted. Just stand corrected and lets move on.

2. Modern thought puts the Torah at roughly 500 BCE far removed from your 2,000 BCE mark.

3. So in other words, you cannot prove your point and isntead must try to insult me be attempting to group me in with the Creationist crowd.

[GurrenLagann]

The removal of humans from their exalted place at the center of God's creation is never implicitly stated, but it's present in every anti-science complaint from Theists.

But theists today =/= those in Copernican's time in every respect. From the academic reljubs of the time, it was primarily the incompatibility of Heliocentric Theory with Aristotlean reasoning, Church dogma based on it and common sense that drew it under heavy fire.

People can't come from monkey cuz Gawd done created us special, to have dominion over aminals! The earth is gross and sinful, but it's also the center of Gawd's attention, and the purpose for which he created everything else. Therefore it must be the center of the Universe, and anyone who says otherwise is itching for a fight.

Well actually, some of Darwin's earliest supporters and defenders were clergymen too, but that wasn't very widespread reception.

2. Modern thought puts the Torah at roughly 500 BCE far removed from your 2,000 BCE mark.

The origin Torah is not the same thing as the origins of the texts that became the Torah. The texts (based and plagarised mainly on Babylonian myths and such) long predated the Torah and Judaism.

Oh and who was the one who said that humans in Biblical times couldn't "comprehend billions of years" (not that anyone can actually comprehend that kind of time intuitively)? If so, bullshit. First off, the Hindu Vedic texts clearly state their belief that the universe is more than 4 BILLION years old. If someone did say that, I really have no clue what they're talking about....

[Davka]

1. And? Your point? You did not reply to what I posted. Just stand corrected and lets move on.

You really have a difficult time with basic logic, don't you?

You claimed that the people who wrote the Bible - specifically, the Book of Genesis - were capable of comprehending fairly complex scientific principles. I corrected your total bullshit, pointing out that the people who wrote Genesis were nomadic shepherds. You stupidly responded by claiming that you were talking about the Greeks and Romans. Aside from the fact that the Greeks and Romans had nothing to do with the writing of the Hebrew Old Testament, I pointed out that those people did not yet exist at the time that the Genesis creation myth was formulated.

Therefore, your claim that "The idea that human beings were incapable of grasping such concepts as billions of years during the time that the bible was written is highly insulting, and shows a certain lack of historical knowledge" is, as I said, total nonsense. Your attempt to bolster this unsupportable position by pretending that you were talking about Rome or Greece is not only demonstrably nonsense, but 'shows a certain lack of historical knowledge" as well.

I don't know which is funnier - the fact that you don't know what the fuck you're talking about, or the fact that you're trying so desperately to weasel out of it. You would have done better to simply say "oh, my mistake" instead of telling me to read before posting. Your ignorance is exceeded only by your arrogance.

2. Modern thought puts the Torah at roughly 500 BCE far removed from your 2,000 BCE mark.

Genesis (and indeed most of the OT) existed in oral form for centuries before it was written down. The people who originally told the Genesis creation story lived a long, long time before it was ever written down. The stories pre-date the "writing" by at least 1,000 years. Try to keep up, will you?

3. So in other words, you cannot prove your point and isntead must try to insult me be attempting to group me in with the Creationist crowd.

No, the creationist line was in regard to a separate issue: your moronic attempt to shift the Burden of Proof by making an unsupported claim and then, when challenged to support your claim, stupidly saying  "prove it's not true."

This idiocy on your part has nothing to do with your previous historically inaccurate idiocy, which I shredded above for your viewing pleasure.

Nice try, no cookie.