| JREF Homepage | Swift Blog | Events Calendar | $1 Million Paranormal Challenge | The Amaz!ng Meeting | Useful Links | Support Us |
![]() |
|
|
|
|||||||
| Notices |
|
|
#1 |
|
Master Poster
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: The great American southeast
Posts: 2,566
|
Does the bible teach evolution? I cut and pasted this from Skeptics bible.
Does the Bible teach evolution?
And God said, Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb yielding seed, and the fruit tree. -- Genesis 1:11 And God said, Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after his kind: and it was so. -- Genesis 1:24 Notice that God lets "the earth bring forth" the plants and animals, rather than create them directly. So maybe the creationists have it all wrong. Maybe Genesis is not so anti-evolution after all. But both Luther and Calvin rejected any non-literal interpretation of the creation accounts in Genesis. At the Reformation the vast authority of Luther was thrown in favour of the literal acceptance of Scripture as the main source of natural science. The allegorical and mystical interpretations of earlier theologians he utterly rejected. "Why," he asks, "should Moses use allegory when he is not speaking of allegorical creatures or of an allegorical world, but of real creatures and of a visible world, which can be seen, felt, and grasped? Moses calls things by their right names, as we ought to do....I hold that the animals took their being at once upon the word of God, as did also the fishes in the sea." Not less explicit in his adherence to the literal account of creation given in Genesis was Calvin. He warns those who, by taking another view than his own, "basely insult the Creator, to expect a judge who will annihilate them." He insists that all species of animals were created in six days, each made up of an evening and a morning, and that no new species has ever appeared since. He dwells on the production of birds from the water as resting upon certain warrant of Scripture, but adds, "If the question is to be argued on physical grounds, we know that water is more akin to air than the earth is." As to difficulties in the scriptural account of creation, he tells us that God "wished by these to give proofs of his power which should fill us with astonishment." I cut and pasted this from "Skeptics Bible". |
|
__________________
If at first you don't succeed try try again. Then if you fail to succeed to Hell with that. Try something else. |
|
|
|
|
|
#2 |
|
Philosopher
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 8,170
|
The Bible (at least the OT) is a collection of tall tales told by goat herders as they sat around their camp fires at night. That any of it relates to reality is an amusing co-incidence.
|
|
__________________
"Reality is what's left when you cease to believe." Philip K. Dick Now completely free. |
|
|
|
|
|
#3 |
|
Guest
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 1,774
|
No, it teaches creationism by a creator. Evolution and creationism are anathema to one another, regardless of how people try to rationalize and merge the two.
|
|
|
|
|
#4 |
|
Graduate Poster
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: UK
Posts: 1,354
|
The Bible is not a science text book.
I'm not sure what the OP is trying to discuss. |
|
__________________
God is my copilot. But we crashed into a mountain and I had to eat him. |
|
|
|
|
|
#5 |
|
Muse
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 502
|
Those same scriptures are used by creationists who advocate intelligent design to establish evolution within a "kind" (whatever that is, no one defines it).
Meaning they accept evolution within boundaries because they have to but still deny common descent. So no they don't teach evolution. |
|
__________________
One man's reason that something is not reliable evidence is another man's whine about how others won't buy 3 magic beans with the family cow. - hgc |
|
|
|
|
|
#6 |
|
Scholar
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 100
|
My brother in law makes that claim. Last time we had that conversation, I was somewhat closeted, and did not push the issue. For some reason we do not talk too much anymore.
I'm truly baffled as to how he can make such a claim, not that he has ever been burdened by, y'know, facts and all. Does anyone have any idea what chapter and verse he may be referring to?MrQ |
|
|
|
|
#7 |
|
Muse
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Nashville, TN.
Posts: 689
|
The Bible is a book. It doesn't teach anything. It reflects its authors' attempts to teach. What they were trying to teach is a whole other question. I don't think the authors necessarily condemned the theory of evolution, but I don't think they taught it either.
|
|
|
|
|
#8 |
|
Master Poster
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: The great American southeast
Posts: 2,566
|
I found this at skepticsbible.com
|
|
__________________
If at first you don't succeed try try again. Then if you fail to succeed to Hell with that. Try something else. |
|
|
|
|
|
#9 |
|
Philanthropic Misanthrope
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Macedonia, OH
Posts: 908
|
If the Bible had something that actually had anything to do with evolution directly, I might buy the idea, but this is a little too much.
Amphibians 4:17 - And the Lord spoke, saying, "See before you the donkeys and horses of the world. Their offspring is sterile and unclean, for in begetting a mule, they act to move toward their common father. Let not the horse and the donkey nor the monkey and the man bear young, for it is an abomination to mine eyes." If you can find a passage that is at least that clear, I'll buy it. (Oh yeah, and yes, I realize that a mule is not a devolved horse/donkey, the idea was that an acknowledgement of a common ancestor would be important.) |
|
__________________
Sandra's seen a leprechaun, Eddie touched a troll, Laurie danced with witches once, Charlie found some goblins' gold. Donald heard a mermaid sing, Susie spied an elf, But all the magic I have known I've had to make myself. - Shel Silverstein |
|
|
|
|
|
#10 |
|
Decoy
Moderator
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: A magical land full of pink fluffy sheeps and bunnies
Posts: 10,322
|
I disagree. Evolution says absolutely nothing about where life came from to start with. That's abiogenesis, and is a completely separate thing. Of course, some creationism is directly opposed to evolution. Claiming that the Earth is 6000 years old and all animals were created exactly as we see them today has rather obvious problems with the scientific viewpoint. However, claiming that evolution happened exactly as science describes, but simply that it was kicked off by some god is not opposed in any way to evolution.
The Bible itself can be taken to support either one of these views. As Gord says, it's a bunch of campfire stories by stone age goat herders, so its hardly surprising it's not particularly explicit about its stance on modern science. The point being that while the Bible certainly does not teach evolution, since the people who wrote it had no concept of evolution, neither does it contradict it. Some people will interpret it one way and some the other, but the actual words themselves are neither pro- or anti-evolution, they just don't address it at all. |
|
__________________
This space not left unintentionally blank. |
|
|
|
![]() |
| Bookmarks |
| Thread Tools | |
|
|