Genesis creation & Darwin’s evolution theory co-cooperate
The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.
After 1 vote and with 6 points ahead, the winner is...
- Publication date
- Last updated date
- Number of rounds
- Time for argument
- Three days
- Max argument characters
- Voting period
- Two weeks
- Point system
- Multiple criterions
- Voting system
I contend that the Genesis creation text co-cooperates with Darwin’s evolution theory, as documented in On the Origin of Species, of natural selection. That is, the argument is not whether creation or evolution combat for the truth, as if two separate sides of a coin, but that both co-cooperate in the truth that creation and evolution both explain “…God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and fowl of the air, …and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.” And “There is grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers…” as if two features on the same side of one coin.
Creation: The earth and heaven are created by gods [plural, as designated by Genesis 1: 26], intelligent and purposeful, perfect beings. All plants and animals, as then developed in their kind, were created, but creation continues in the guise of evolution.
Evolution: the ongoing process of creation wherein, by natural selection [natural and random genetic varietal expression], both continuing varieties of life forms, and development of new life forms, is a constant, continuing process.
fauxlaw wrote...God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and fowl of the air, …and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.”[i] And “There is grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers…”[ii] as if two features on the same side of one coin.
developed by the English naturalist Charles Darwin
Evolution is change in the heritable characteristics of biological populations over successive generations. These characteristics are the expressions of genes that are passed on from parent to offspring during reproduction. Different characteristics tend to exist within any given population as a result of mutation, genetic recombination and other sources of genetic variation. Evolution occurs when evolutionary processes such as natural selection (including sexual selection) and genetic drift act on this variation, resulting in certain characteristics becoming more common or rare within a population. It is this process of evolution that has given rise to biodiversity at every level of biological organisation, including the levels of species, individual organisms and molecules
Richard Feynman once said, "I think I can safely say that nobody understands quantum mechanics."
fauxlaw wrote...I will argue, first, that “God” is a title of a man, a holy man, and not His name; similar to “person” is a title of an animal, not its name, and whose specific name might be “Adam,” and “Eve.”
3 And God said: 'Let there be light.
Genesis affirms monotheism and denies polytheism
Monotheism is the belief in one god.
is the worship of or belief in multiple deities
The commandments include instructions to have no other gods before him
fauxlaw wrote...Genesis 1 describes a creation, or organization of materials in six “days,” [I prefer the closer understanding of the Hebrew יום [yom], as not a 24-hour period, but as a “period” of undefined length.
King Ptolemy once gathered 72 Elders. He placed them in 72 chambers, each of them in a separate one, without revealing to them why they were summoned. He entered each one's room and said: "Write for me the Torah of Moshe, your teacher". God put it in the heart of each one to translate identically as all the others did.
It can also be regarded as ancient history, "part of a broader spectrum of originally anonymous, history-like ancient Near Eastern narratives."
Genesis 1–2 can be seen as ancient science: in the words of E.A. Speiser, "on the subject of creation biblical tradition aligned itself with the traditional tenets of Babylonian science."
God said:Con argues that “there is no mention of God.” I presume he means by the citation given, en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Darwinism. However, that very reference includes the statement, “It is therefore considered the belief and acceptance of Darwin's and of his predecessors' work, in place of other theories, including divine design and extraterrestrial origins.”[bolding added for emphasis] I submit that phrase qualifies as “mention of God,” even though the intent is to distinguish and diminish a design by purposeful creation opposed to a random design of evolution. By definition, Genesis is as germane to the debate as Darwin’s Origin…and both more germane than a third party. Variations of “God said” exist in multiple examples in Genesis, alone, and it is irrelevant that a third party says otherwise.
In the image of God:Further, my opponent declares that a quote from his source [same as above], and not, take note, from Darwin, himself, says there is no mention of man being made in the image of God. First, there is a quote direct from Darwin acknowledging the action of God, which I quoted in my first round: “There is grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed by the Creator into a few forms, or into one…; and are being, evolved.”[i]
Darwin, himself, acknowledges “the Creator,” and further describes his proposed evolutionary process by a singular image in his volume, the design of speciation represented by a tree; branching of species, already branched separately from a brief period of a single form [a “common ancestor”], and not progressing in a linear,scala natura as some interpret Darwin, before and after, such as Con’s sources.Multiple branches of forms, each expressing change by generational alteration in each branch.[ii]
The final, most elegant of both creation and evolution, in consideration of all branches, is man, the ultimate form [he appears, on the tree as the highest of all branches].[iii]It follows that by creation’s description, man is in the image of God as His last and most cherished created form, just as God said, and as Darwin graphically presented.
Mesopotamia:Con introduces Mesopotamian text, more ancient than Moses’ Genesis, as evidence that there is no acknowledgement of a scientific allowance for “the heritable characteristics of biological populations over successive generations.”
I refer the reader to a discussion on the point of science and religion, and their relative, cooperative natures. “To the extent that such questions provoke a constructive engagement of scientific and religious ideas, they are an expression of an interaction approach to science and religion.”[iv] “Interaction.” According to the OED, this means, “Reciprocal action; action or influence of persons or things on each other. Also attributive.”[v]To the extent possible, this implies a cooperative effort, as the question of the debate imposes.
Quantum Mechanics:Quoting from Con’s source, he declares, “Quantum Mechanics is a fundamental theory in physics describing the properties of nature.” Fine; an acceptable commentary, for a theory. But why, then, does Con immediately argue, following the theory by another quote from the same source: “Richard Feynman once said, ‘I think I can safely say that nobody understands quantum mechanics.’”Seems the argument fails on these opposing quotes, alone.
The Name of God:That my opponent further parses the name of God is of no consequence. Con argues the name, Elohim. This is a name I did not bother to mention. I can argue that His name may be Jim; but it is singularly irrelevant to this debate. Con argues further by quoting my argument, “I will argue, first, that “God” is the title of a man, a holy man, and not his name…” [bold added for emphasis] Then, Con argues “Now… my opponent is perhaps trying to imply that “God” was the name of a Scientist…” Note, dear readers, the contradictive argument. I tried no such thing, as my original statement said, “God” is a title, not a name.
I planted this first argument because I assumed my opponent would argue this very point as evidence that creation is a hoax, merely by the reference to God, by name or title, and that evolution is not a hoax by merely ignoring God, by name or title [only it doesn’t do that, either]. This attempt denies the point of the debate: co-cooperation, but it fails by declaring my argument as the reverse of what it is.
One God, or many:I find this argument is also irrelevant. Does it matter? No. But, to Con’s argument, “And God said, Let there be light”[vi]as if there is but one God. Con ignores the potential necessity of God saying anything at all. To whom was he speaking as He brought light? Himself? I will clarify: “And God said, Let usmake man in ourown image, after our likeness…”[vii]Again, why does God say anything at all if He is in solitary while conducting the Creation? No, He is clearly with an assembled body of creator and assistants, and because he says, “Let usmake man…” [bold for emphasis] He is acknowledging that those with Him have the same godly powers as He possesses. Of these gods, he is also in charge of the project. The whole of it refutes Con’s argument that “Genesis affirms monotheism and denies polytheism,” in spite of his later claim, “The commandments include instructions to have no other gods before him.” Of course. That is because the gods of creation are subordinate, with regard to Creation, to the project leader, and He continues in that leadership, as expressed by Exodus 20. “…no other gods before me” also had reference to the pattern of men to fashion idols.[viii]
So, let’s proceed with additive argument:
The Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil:“And the Lord God commanded the man, saying, Of every tree of the garden thou mayest freely eat: But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.”[ix] On first pass, this appears to be a firm command prohibiting the eating of the fruit of the tree of knowledge; an absolute prohibition with all the strength of the future command, “Thou shalt not kill.”[x]However, a careful read, grammatically, reveals a far different understanding: it is a test of free agency. The command begins, “Of every treethou mayest freely eat…” [bold for emphasis]. Only then is a condition set for just one tree; that of bearing fruit that gives knowledge, conditional on that knowledge leading to death, “in that day.”
Satan rightly later told Eve that “in that day”did not imply an immediate death. Was Satan implying that “day” was to be understood in the context presented in my round 1 that the Hebrew “yom” was to be the preferred understanding; an undetermined period of time?
Regardless, our understanding is that Adam and Eve, prior to eating the fruit of knowledge, had no understanding of specific knowledge; that of good and evil. And now, having eaten, they did.
One reference to why humans age and die states: “The more likely it is that you're dead, [or, I submit, in a dying process]the less your genes care about you… This has been going on throughout our evolutionary history… we've accumulated… weird malfunctions that kick in late in our lives. The human genome is riddled with them, and most of the genes involved are also part of normal development and reproduction. These malfunctions cluster around a certain age: the age when evolution stops caring about us.”[xi]These limitations generally occur beyond our ability to pass on genes in any event, so the general effect of generational evolution is also thwarted. Thus, both creation, and evolution acknowledge death, and even extinction, as eventual products of living. They are, by purpose and natural selection, a feature of life.
I contend that an evolutionary change occurred in Adam and Eve, perhaps one of limiting the length of telomeres, the tissue at each end of a DNA molecule that protect the DNA against mutation.[xii]Without telomeres, the DNA strand readily mutates, and can no longer resist aging.[xiii]The natural consequence of aging, in virtually all life forms, is death.[xiv]Biblically, we have no knowledge whatsoever regarding the length of time Adam and Eve spent in Eden, nor how long it was until they were banished from Eden after they partook of the fruit of knowledge. Evolutionary time? A “yom?” Within a literal 24 hours? Who knows? I contend that Genesis is cooperative with Evolution. We are told biblically that Adam endured 935 years,[xv]but it does not really matter. The effective evolution of Adam toward death was at least, by biblical reference, nearly 1,000 years. We have certainly seen natural evolution effect changes within that span of time.[xvi]
fauxlaw wrote....In the image of God: Further, my opponent declares that a quote from his source [same as above], and not, take note, from Darwin, himself, says there is no mention of man being made in the image of God. First, there is a quote direct from Darwin acknowledging the action of God, which I quoted in my first round: “There is grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed by the Creator into a few forms, or into one…; and are being, evolved.”[i]Darwin, himself, acknowledges “the Creator,”
By his return, he was critical of the Bible as history,
To Darwin, natural selection produced the good of adaptation but removed the need for design,
Though he thought of religion as a tribal survival strategy,
Darwin remained close friends with the vicar of Downe, John Brodie Innes, and continued to play a leading part in the parish work of the church, but from around 1849 would go for a walk on Sundays while his family attended church. He considered it "absurd to doubt that a man might be an ardent theist and an evolutionist"
The "Lady Hope Story", published in 1915, claimed that Darwin had reverted to Christianity on his sickbed.
The claims were repudiated by Darwin's children and have been dismissed as false by historians.[
fauxlaw wrote....Mesopotamia:Con introduces Mesopotamian text, more ancient than Moses’ Genesis, as evidence that there is no acknowledgement of a scientific allowance for “the heritable characteristics of biological populations over successive generations.
The myth begins with humans being created by the mother goddess Mami to lighten the gods' workload. She made them out of a mixture of clay, flesh, and blood from a slain god.
fauxlaw wrote...But why, then, does Con immediately argue, following the theory by another quote from the same source: “Richard Feynman once said, ‘I think I can safely say that nobody understands quantum mechanics.’”Seems the argument fails on these opposing quotes, alone.
fauxtlaw wrote....That my opponent further parses the name of God is of no consequence. Con argues the name, Elohim. This is a name I did not bother to mention. I can argue that His name may be Jim; but it is singularly irrelevant to this debate. Con argues further by quoting my argument, “I will argue, first, that “God” is the title of a man, a holy man, and not his name…”
fauxlaw wrote...I contend that an evolutionary change occurred in Adam and Eve
Between 65,000 BC and 35,000 BC northern Iraq was home to a Neanderthal culture,
fauxlaw wrote...Yet my opponent seems fixed on the subject to the exclusion of debating the co-cooperation of Genesis and Evolution.
In later editions of the book, Darwin traced evolutionary ideas as far back as Aristotle
the Hebrew Torah was translated into Greek at the request of Ptolemy II Philadelphus (285–247 BCE)
Aristotle 384 – 322 BC
Note, however, that his use of the term science carries a different meaning than that covered by the term "scientific method". For Aristotle, "all science is either practical, poetical or theoretical" His practical science includes ethics and politics; his poetical science means the study of fine arts including poetry; his theoretical science covers physics, mathematics and metaphysics.
Aristotle's writings can seem to modern readers close to implying evolution, but while Aristotle was aware that new mutations or hybridizations could occur, he saw these as rare accidents.
the text he cites is a summary by Aristotle of the ideas of the earlier Greek philosopher Empedocles.
Empedocles 494 – c. 434 BC
fauxlaw wroteIt was just observed, and documented. By Darwin, not by Aristotle, or anyone following his straight-line theory of progression.
fauxlaw wrote“And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth.
God blessed them and said to them, "Be fruitful and increase in number; fill the earth and subdue it. Rule over the fish in the sea and the birds in the sky and over every living creature that moves on the ground."
ויברך אתם אלהים ויאמר להם אלהים פרו ורבו ומלאו את־הארץ וכבשה ורדו בדגת הים ובעוף השמים ובכל־חיה הרמשת על־הארץWayəḇāreḵ ’ōṯām ’ĕlōhîm, wayyō’mer lāhem ’ĕlōhîm, "Pərû, ûrəḇû, ûmilə’û ’eṯ-hā’āreṣ, wəḵiḇəšuhā; ûrəḏû biḏəg̱aṯ hayyām, ûḇə‘ôp̱ haššāmayim, ûḇəḵāl-ḥayyāh hārōmeśeṯ ‘al-hā’āreṣ."
Bless ye God, and say unto them, God prostrate and fill the earth, and conquer the rose of the sea, and of the fowl, and of every beast that rams in the earth.
Fifth dayAnd God said: 'Let the waters swarm with swarms of living creatures, and let fowl fly above the earth in the open firmament of heaven.' 21 And God created the great sea-monsters, and every living creature that creepeth, wherewith the waters swarmed, after its kind, and every winged fowl after its kind; and God saw that it was good. 22 And God blessed them, saying: 'Be fruitful, and multiply, and fill the waters in the seas, and let fowl multiply in the earth.' 23 And there was evening and there was morning, a fifth day.
The earliest known life-forms on Earth are putative fossilized microorganisms, found in hydrothermal vent precipitates, that may have lived as early as 4.28 billion years ago, relatively soon after the oceans formed 4.41 billion years ago, and not long after the formation of the Earth 4.54 billion years ago.
Nevertheless, by Con’s argument, we are led, once again, on an extended journey beyond the confines of the debate subject by an exhaustive review of the comparative differences in the Protestant Reformation, and its “literal interpretation of the Bible,” which did not allow Science to “threaten religion nor [sic] politics, for obvious reasons,” the which are further explained by a still more exhaustive discussion of Aristotle, and the relatively late translation of the Hebrew Torah into the Septuagint by request of Ptolemy II [in the throws of the end of the majestic Egyptian Empire, now fallen on hard times, the Torah is translated into Greek, not into Egyptian Demotic, itself, evolved from New Kingdom Egyptian hieroglyphics, in which I am fluent. Ptolemy II was Greek by ancestry, not Egyptian – and thus the Torah was not translated into Egyptian Demotic], and round again to Aristotle as a more correct interpretation of the Holy Bible, even though Aristotle’s “Science” did not match our current interpretation of it, even considering the 19th century’s view of science. And, finally, that Genesis is but a poor cousin to Abiogenesis, whatever that is.
However, none of it is relevant to our poor subject at hand, to which my opponent generously agreed to discuss on the merit of my proposed definitions of “creation” and “evolution,” and has discussed everything but, to wit, that Genesis and Evolution co-cooperate, the latter proposed by Charles Darwin, who still appears to be a bit player according to Con, who will not quote him in favor of others who talk about him.
In fact, Con even digresses into an argument offered entirely in Hebrew, and repeated phonetically, as if we readers are all fluent in the same. Would you appreciate an argument in hieroglyphs? Fun, maybe, to look at, but debate is not a graphic environment. However, Con’s argument is based on another foray into Wiki, so it is all okay, according to Con. Well, that whole argument of “cultural mandate,” the real subject of this version of Con’s argument, since Con is so devoted to time, and sequence, as a matter of pattern recognition, this “cultural mandate” dates from 1973 by its author, H.W. Mare. I perceive that post-dates both Genesis, and On the Origin of Species,and would, therefore, impose a type not reflective of either volume. Never mind, we are offered an English translation by Wiki, our faithful lap dog, although Con did not bother to offer it, and it is essentially Genesis 1: 28, however you wish to parse that in various English translations.
My opponent even generously offers, “…it is unlikely, given what we actually do know about genuine Scientific understanding at that time [which time – the Torah, or Darwinism, or “cultural mandate?”],that the Torah was a blueprint for Darwinism.” I agree, the Torah would represent a very poor blueprint, but we’re not debating the relative blueprints of creation and evolution, but merely their common ground, regardless of origin. We have, simply, a document alleged to be “the Word of God,” but we need not even debate its authenticity, but merely that it makes commentary on creation, and another document we are reasonably certain is the Word of Charles Darwin, but we need not debate its authenticity, either, but merely that it makes commentary on evolution. Now, are there intersections of two common roads such that they cross paths, so to speak, regardless of their relative origins or destinations? Hence, road trips of the nature taken by my opponent are completely irrelevant.
Let us take, as a final Pro argument of the co-cooperation of Creation and Evolution, in the respective examples of Moses’ Genesis and Darwin’s On the Origin of Species, passages from Genesis 3: 6, and from Darwin’s Origin Chapter 11, “Instinct,” and see, therein still another cooperative endeavor. Let’s call this one, after Maslow’s “Hierarchy of Basis Needs,”[ii]
“And when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was pleasant to the eyes, and a tree to be desired to make one wise, she took of the fruit thereof, and did eat, and gave also unto her husband with her, and he did eat.”[iii ]If it is that good to body and soul - and what really great food is not? – why not eat it?
In this wise did Adam and Eve “fall;” that is, by transgression of one law among three, and they were forced out of Eden, into the dreary world where their lives would have suffering and pain, sorry and misery, but would also experience joy and fulfillment. Why? Note that a careful read of Genesis reveals that, all during their sojourn in Eden, they did not ever “multiply and replenish the earth;” they had no children until their banishment from the Garden. Considering that both creation and evolution kind of depend on the passing of genes from one generation to the next, the Fall presents a considerable necessity, a paradigm shift, and a favorable mutation in Adam and Eve, as discussed in hte previous round.
Considering the blessing of children as, later, Proverbs advises, was the lot of Adam and Eve truly a “Fall” from grace, or was it really an entry into it? The question poses a different observation than traditionally held by practitioners of the typical Christian view that Adam and Eve sinned, and that we bear their scar. Rather, I contend that “transgression” is not the equivalent of sin [and they are responsible for their sins, not ever us]; that it is an inferior infraction, a violation not of God’s commands, but a violation of natural law, such as violating the law of gravity by falling off a roof. But a greater law was served in the process: to “multiply and replenish the earth.” By just the later witness in Proverbs that children are the fulfillment of “multiply and replenish the earth,”and provide the means for the “Fall” to be, instead, “…identified as the ‘beginning of the rise of man.’”[v]
Did Darwin ever write about such reasoning as Eve considered in partaking of the fruit of the Tree of Knowledge? As it happens, he did, though he may have been unaware of it. We are, in his eighth chapter, “Instinct,” told the following observation:
“One of the strongest instances of an animal apparently performing an action for the sole good of another…, is that of aphides voluntarily yielding…, their sweet excretion to ants: that they do so voluntarily, the following facts show.”[vi] For brevity, Darwin proceeded to describe this aphides/ants phenomenon as instinctual, by both aphides and ants, wherein he decided to separate the two species by experiment, and discovered that, with the ants withdrawn, the aphides no longer excreted their sweet juice; “not one.” With a single ant allowed back into the company of aphides, they began, once again, to excrete with eager animation.
The parallel with the Genesis story, replacing the tree for the aphid, and the pleasure derived by Eve, replacing the ant, is unmistakable, though likely not envisioned by Darwin. Not to mention the purpose in providing a nourishing meal for both ant and Eve, for the ongoing survival of all species involved. The tree, in the Genesis story, having fulfilled its role in the “rise of man” to mortality by the gift of “the mother of all living,”[vii] we perceive that the tree performed its purpose, and was likely replaced with the “grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers [creation and evolution, in co-cooperation?]… from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being evolved.”[viii] And are still evolving today, as evidenced in my small fruit tree orchard, two separate varieties of apricot, one nectarine, one apple and one cherry. Grand, indeed.
fauxlaw wrote...Con has seen fit to draw virtually exclusively from one source, Wikipedia, of which Wikipedia, itself, says the following: “Wikipedia does not consider itself to be a reliable source,” because Wiki allows anyone to post anything to create, or edit a subject with little verification of information other than dependence on other posters, who, themselves, may not be credentialed.
The reliability of Wikipedia has frequently been questioned and often assessed.
Incidents of conflicted editing, and the use of Wikipedia for 'revenge editing' (inserting false, defamatory or biased statements into biographies) have attracted publicity.
Because Wikipedia is open to anonymous and collaborative editing, assessments of its reliability often examine how quickly false or misleading information is removed. A study conducted by IBM researchers in 2003—two years following Wikipedia's establishment—found that "vandalism is usually repaired extremely quickly—so quickly that most users will never see its effects"
False information has sometimes lasted for a long time on Wikipedia. In May 2005, an editor sparked controversy by creating an article about John Seigenthaler that included false and defamatory statements. The inaccurate information remained uncorrected for four months. A biographical article on French Wikipedia portrayed a "Léon-Robert de L'Astran" as an 18th-century anti-slavery ship owner, which led Ségolène Royal, a presidential candidate, to praise him. A student investigation determined that the article was a hoax and de L'Astran had never existed.
Many academics distrust Wikipedia, but may see it as a valuable jumping off point for research, with many of the reliable sources used in its articles generally seen as legitimate sources for more in-depth information and use in assigned papers. For this reason some academics suggest ‘Verifiability by respected sources’ as an indicator for assessing the quality of Wikipedia articles at the higher education level.
Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Encyclopædia Britannica disputed the Nature study, and Nature replied with a formal response and point-by-point rebuttal of Britannica's main objections.
fauxlaw wrote...the latter proposed by Charles Darwin, who still appears to be a bit player according to Con, who will not quote him in favor of others who talk about him.
God-guided evolution are views that regard religious teachings about God as compatible with modern scientific understanding about biological evolution. Theistic evolution is not in itself a scientific theory, but a range of views about how the science of general evolution relates to religious beliefs in contrast to special creation views.
fauxlaw wrote....Let us take, as a final Pro argument of the co-cooperation of Creation and Evolution, in the respective examples of Moses’ Genesis and Darwin’s On the Origin of Species, passages from Genesis 3: 6, and from Darwin’s Origin Chapter 11, “Instinct,” and see, therein still another cooperative endeavor. Let’s call this one, after Maslow’s “Hierarchy of Basis Needs,”“And when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was pleasant to the eyes, and a tree to be desired to make one wise, she took of the fruit thereof, and did eat, and gave also unto her husband with her, and he did eat.” If it is that good to body and soul - and what really great food is not? – why not eat it?
fauxlaw wrote...I contend that the Genesis creation text co-cooperates with Darwin’s evolution theory, as documented in On the Origin of Species, of natural selection.