53
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 75:
Line 75: + + + + + + + +
Talk:Falsifiability of Creation (view source)
Revision as of 15:44, October 25, 2008
, 15:44, October 25, 2008no edit summary
: The language of Genesis 1 is that of narrative, and the [[Creation week|experts agree that it was meant as history]]. And that's a point to keep in mind: The Bible was not written as a ''science'' textbook, but it does contain a lot of ''[[Bible history|history]]'', and some of that history does overlap areas that science claims. But is it really science (observation and testing) or ''history'' that is in dispute? We can run tests to see if scales have the capability of turning in feathers, but we can't run tests to see if that's what actually happened in the past. The former is ''science'', and the latter is ''history''. Okay, the two are not mutually exclusive, and certainly science can aid our understanding of history, but we must not blur the distinction.
: The language of Genesis 1 is that of narrative, and the [[Creation week|experts agree that it was meant as history]]. And that's a point to keep in mind: The Bible was not written as a ''science'' textbook, but it does contain a lot of ''[[Bible history|history]]'', and some of that history does overlap areas that science claims. But is it really science (observation and testing) or ''history'' that is in dispute? We can run tests to see if scales have the capability of turning in feathers, but we can't run tests to see if that's what actually happened in the past. The former is ''science'', and the latter is ''history''. Okay, the two are not mutually exclusive, and certainly science can aid our understanding of history, but we must not blur the distinction.
: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 00:09, 25 October 2008 (EDT)
: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 00:09, 25 October 2008 (EDT)
I see we're probably about to enter an identical debate as the one on the Roman Catholicism talk page, but I would like to respond here before moving the debate.
After reading it even more carefully, I insist on my assertation that the second account is chronological. It does not include specific lengths of time, like the first account, but it certainly contains order. Gen 2:4-7 clearly describes the creation of man before "there was field shrub on earth and grass had sprouted." More importantly, Gen 2:8-9 very clearly says that the creation of plant life took place subsequent to the creation of man, which is contradictory to the first creation story. Gen 2:18-20 asserts that God created animal life in response to man's being alone (also my translation, NAB, does not have "had" in 2:19...even if it did I would argue that it meant "had created" in the sense of "ordered to be created"). I honestly fail to see how this can't be taken chronologically.
You say that experts agree Gen 1 was meant as history, but I utterly disagree with this claim. The Catholic Church's ''official doctrine'' is that the creation stories were not meant to be taken literally. Whether or not we agree with this claim, the Church's stance is at least evidence that the experts ''do not'' agree about the intent of Genesis. Now, for fear of entering into a doctrinal battle (as per my user page, I want to avoid those), that is all I will say on that particular matter.
Finally, you establish a dichotomy between science and history, whereas any professional historian will tell you that history must follow the scientific method. In the course of historical studies, a narrative must be treated as the primary evidence on which hypotheses are made. Testing these hypotheses becomes difficult to impossible, which is one reason why the fossil record is only weak evidence for any origins thoery. Evolution is actually tested in completely different ways, which I discuss in our debate on "counterexamples to evolution" discussion. --[[User:Thinker|Thinker]] 11:44, 25 October 2008 (EDT)