Kirby D. P.
Member
- Joined
- May 12, 2015
- Messages
- 393
Hello. Friendly atheist here. Something really funny just occurred to me and I think I’d like some of your thoughts about it.
First, let me just say how confounded I am by the rejection of conventional science by many American Christians (evolution by natural selection, ages of 4 and 13.8 billion years for the Earth and the visible universe, respectively, etc.). I know this is not universally the rule. I don’t know anyone personally among my many religious Christian friends who take any issue with natural history or human history or biology as presented at places like the Smithsonian Institution in Washington, DC. Indeed, before I relinquished my own faith, it never occurred to me to pit scripture or dogma against post-Enlightenment scholarship. To me they always dealt with entirely distinct facets of existence.
But, I do know from experience, many members here at TJ indeed see in scripture certain refutation of what I don’t mind calling scientific orthodoxy.
As you might guess, I spend a good amount of time reading and, especially, watching video of debate between theists and atheists. One of the chronic sticking points that invariably hang up (and, for me at least, ruin) the conversation is any time spent disputing the meaning and “accuracy” of Gen 1:25, “And God made the beast of the earth after his kind, and cattle after their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind: and God saw that it was good.”
The theist always points to this as explicit, absolute refutation of the theory of evolution. Creatures can only ever bring forth after their own “kind,” and they go on to resort to some absurdist example like, “Cats can only ever give birth to kittens. You never see them having puppies.” Then the atheist “helpfully” points out all that shows is the people who wrote the Bible knew nothing about biology OR evolution and (either implicitly or explicitly) neither does the theist. The atheist often seeks to twist the knife by demanding their opponent explain what the differences, and the coincidences, are between the scriptural term “kind” and the scientific label “species.” The theists don’t help matters when they utterly fail in any attempt to respond, apparently oblivious to the fact the very point of argument is just a pig in a poke.
This waste of energy and spittle sends me positively climbing the walls. And here’s why. In my opinion, Genesis 1:25 may be the most succinct, eloquent, and, above all, accurate expression of the principle of evolution by natural selection of the pre-scientific age.
The process of evolution only works if all creatures bring forth after their “own kind.” Perhaps the most definitive way to falsify and completely demolish the theory of evolution by natural selection would be for a pregnant cat to whelp a puppy. No offspring of any organism can be of a different “kind” than itself. Evolution can develop a blue whale from Pakicitus, something that looked and lived like a coyote on dry land. Blue whales and Pakicetus are unquestionably two different species by any scientific meaning of the term: if they both lived at the same time, in the same world, it would be impossible for them to so much as meet, much less procreate.
But the fossil record separates them by about 50 millions of years. And at no point in that ages-long story is there any paring of parent and offspring in which they are not manifestly of the same “kind.”
According to both science and the Bible, beasts of the earth, and cattle, and every thing that creepeth upon the earth were created after their kind. And (at least in my opinion) it is, indeed, very good.
There are actually a number of scientific facts of life that Genesis gets eerily right. But seeing them and appreciating them requires taking scripture on its own terms as it was intended. Something to nourish one’s spirit and not as prep for the SATs. If anyone here is at all interested, I’m happy to outline some of them. But first, I’d like to know what some of you think of my take on Gen 1:25.
Whatever else, I hope I have not offended anybody. Such is definitely not my purpose.
First, let me just say how confounded I am by the rejection of conventional science by many American Christians (evolution by natural selection, ages of 4 and 13.8 billion years for the Earth and the visible universe, respectively, etc.). I know this is not universally the rule. I don’t know anyone personally among my many religious Christian friends who take any issue with natural history or human history or biology as presented at places like the Smithsonian Institution in Washington, DC. Indeed, before I relinquished my own faith, it never occurred to me to pit scripture or dogma against post-Enlightenment scholarship. To me they always dealt with entirely distinct facets of existence.
But, I do know from experience, many members here at TJ indeed see in scripture certain refutation of what I don’t mind calling scientific orthodoxy.
As you might guess, I spend a good amount of time reading and, especially, watching video of debate between theists and atheists. One of the chronic sticking points that invariably hang up (and, for me at least, ruin) the conversation is any time spent disputing the meaning and “accuracy” of Gen 1:25, “And God made the beast of the earth after his kind, and cattle after their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind: and God saw that it was good.”
The theist always points to this as explicit, absolute refutation of the theory of evolution. Creatures can only ever bring forth after their own “kind,” and they go on to resort to some absurdist example like, “Cats can only ever give birth to kittens. You never see them having puppies.” Then the atheist “helpfully” points out all that shows is the people who wrote the Bible knew nothing about biology OR evolution and (either implicitly or explicitly) neither does the theist. The atheist often seeks to twist the knife by demanding their opponent explain what the differences, and the coincidences, are between the scriptural term “kind” and the scientific label “species.” The theists don’t help matters when they utterly fail in any attempt to respond, apparently oblivious to the fact the very point of argument is just a pig in a poke.
This waste of energy and spittle sends me positively climbing the walls. And here’s why. In my opinion, Genesis 1:25 may be the most succinct, eloquent, and, above all, accurate expression of the principle of evolution by natural selection of the pre-scientific age.
The process of evolution only works if all creatures bring forth after their “own kind.” Perhaps the most definitive way to falsify and completely demolish the theory of evolution by natural selection would be for a pregnant cat to whelp a puppy. No offspring of any organism can be of a different “kind” than itself. Evolution can develop a blue whale from Pakicitus, something that looked and lived like a coyote on dry land. Blue whales and Pakicetus are unquestionably two different species by any scientific meaning of the term: if they both lived at the same time, in the same world, it would be impossible for them to so much as meet, much less procreate.
But the fossil record separates them by about 50 millions of years. And at no point in that ages-long story is there any paring of parent and offspring in which they are not manifestly of the same “kind.”
According to both science and the Bible, beasts of the earth, and cattle, and every thing that creepeth upon the earth were created after their kind. And (at least in my opinion) it is, indeed, very good.
There are actually a number of scientific facts of life that Genesis gets eerily right. But seeing them and appreciating them requires taking scripture on its own terms as it was intended. Something to nourish one’s spirit and not as prep for the SATs. If anyone here is at all interested, I’m happy to outline some of them. But first, I’d like to know what some of you think of my take on Gen 1:25.
Whatever else, I hope I have not offended anybody. Such is definitely not my purpose.
