Chronology Current Month Current Thread Current Date
[Year List] [Month List (current year)] [Date Index] [Thread Index] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Date Prev] [Date Next]

Re: Evolution and Creationism



Hi all-
I have just one question for Kenneth J. Morgan, and one comment:

The question: You write:
*******************************************************************
Creationism is a model that attempts to account for the origin of the
universe and life on the basis of observed data. So is evolution. If God
created the universe, for the sake of argument, might there not be evidence
observable in the universe? Might there not also be evidence of the manner
or mechanisms he used in the creation of the universe? So if a scientist
sees these evidences and builds a model that incorporates the observable
data, does that mean he is engaging in religion rather than science? I
would argue no. The only way to argue yes would be to assume a priori with
Carl Sagan that the natural universe is all there ever was, all there is,
and all there ever will be. However, that is naturalism: a philosophical or
religious statement. It is not science. Science simply observes what is.
*************************************
In physics, which is the only "science" that I know well, every
model is tentative and subject to continuous testing and change. Most of
the seminars that I attend are related to attempts to formulate better models.
Creationism, as I understand it, is fixed by the words of your bible.
Is this a correct statement about creationism.

My comment:
You write, referring, I think, to the Christian old testament
(which is a re-editing of the Jewish Bible):
***********************************************************************
It is always interesting to read statements made by someone who strays into
a field he knows nothing about. This quote is absolute nonsense. In
addition to a degree in physics, I also have a seminary degree in Old
Testament biblical studies. I got my first "B" studying "the original
tongue [that] has been lost." The "tongue" is Hebrew, and the word is yom.
We do not have the original autographs, but no textual scholar in the world
(of any religious stripe) believes that our Hebrew text today differs in
any significant way from the original in the creation accounts of Genesis.
The Hebrew text upon which modern English translations are based is the
Masoretic text of about the 8th or 9th century A.D. The Dead Sea Scrolls
strikingly confirmed the astonishing accuracy with which the Masoretes
preserved the Hebrew text.
********************************
But scholars are mostly agreed that Torah (which is at issue here)
was heavily edited during the Babylonian captivity (about 550 b.c.e.). As
a follower of Biblical Archeological Review I can tell you that there is
essentially no archeological confirmation for any bible narratives dating
prior to the Assyrian conquest of Israel in about the Ninth Century.
There is therefore considerable room for conjecture about the material
that went into the editing process. I think that the currently favored conjecture
is that the material is oral tradition. Close resemblances to Babylonian and
Sumerian mythology have been noted.
The good news is that most archeology has not been done yet, so our
views of the origins of Jewish traditions [I carefully do NOT say "Judeo-Christian",
which really means Christian], may be subject to considerable revision.
Regards,
Jack

"These several facts prove nothing, for one cannot deduce a principle from so
few examples, but they do at least indicate that the ability to learn to spell
correctly is a gift; that it is born in a person, and that it is a sign of
intellectual inferiority. By parity of reasoning, its absence is a sign of
great mental power."
Mark Twain, "Extract from Eve's Diary'.