I'm (very slowly) getting caught up in some of my reading. If I'm lucky I can finish putting together the new blog one of these days. Anyway, one of the more interesting posts I read was from Chris at Mixing Memory. It's from way back in August - almost a month ago. It's about a scientist named Bailey. Cases like these always catch my interest. It seems that there is a perception that only "unthinking conservatives" politicize science and engage in ad homen or worse. Of course that's not the case. Don't get me wrong I've been very critical of conservative excesses over the past decade. But the way some scientists seem to see only a narrow spectrum of problems really worries me. (Yes, I'll admit some of that is that it bothers me for political reasons - but part is that it bothers me for the safety of science) Anyway, read Chris' post. It's well worth reading as are the comments.
Here's what bothers me. Creationism is a big worry. But I'm just not at all convinced it is as big a worry as some see. Yes education for society about science is extremely important. But let's be 100% honest. Most Americans are stupid about most science. Believing in Creationism isn't (IMO) even the most egregious error held belief they have. And if they believed in evolution (like many Europeans) merely for superficial and largely ignorant reasons I'm not sure that'd be better. Don't get me wrong. I see Creationism as a big problem. But is it the biggest one? I just don't think so.
Here are my reasons. First, at the university level, I'm just not at all convinced Creationists do much. Whereas many of these other groups (and Pinker in The Blank Slate gives many more) seem to have much, much more effect on actual scientists. I'm far more worried about anti-genetic engineering activists and animal rights activists putting sufficient fear in people that they skip research than I am about some Evangelical (or even Mormon) who thinks the world was only created 7000 years ago. Ditto with a lot of psychology on false memories, on sexuality and so forth.
Yes scientists may be wrong. They may even be incompetent scientists. But the way to handle such things isn't through political intimidation (broadly construed). Rather it is through academic discourse. And this just doesn't apply to what some might broadly call liberal movements (anti-genetic modified foods, animal rights, gay rights, anti-racism, etc.) Rather it applies equally to conservative pressure. (Say folks writing about the United States being imperialist or so forth - or even writing very offensive things)
Yeah, perhaps I'm being a bit of an idealist. But I honestly think that in academics the biggest approach ought to be academic critique.
Of course the second biggest problem is that the media misreports on science in a horrible fashion. They sensationalize without having a clue what they are writing about. On some topics this can have political implications and I can understand why some get upset.
Clark:Believing in Creationism isn't (IMO) even the most egregious error held belief they have.
So, what is?
I think knowing that the earth orbits the sun is pretty basic. I think it's far worse to believe that isn't true. You'd think everyone would know that but according to one poll nearly 20% of Americans didn't know that.
Face it Clark, the liberals have shown that all conservatives disagree with them only because of brain damage. To even suggest that they are not getting the matter right is just to demonstrate that your brain damage also leads to self-deception and a host of cognitive biases.
Sadly some among both liberals and conservatives feel that way of the other. There's many sad things in politics but I think the polarization and the inability to accept that those who disagree with oneself are being rational are the worst. In that I heap plenty of scorn among the shrill and shreaking of both parties.
Clark:I think knowing that the earth orbits the sun is pretty basic. I think it's far worse to believe that isn't true. You'd think everyone would know that but according to one poll nearly 20% of Americans didn't know that.
Ouch! That doesn't bode well for democracy...
I think that's the point. Some are trying so hard to turn this into a science vs. religion conflict whereas the real problem is ignorance vs. information. By focusing in on the narrow problem they are both fighting the wrong war and also missing many bigger problems.
There's also the problem of methods. Is continually posting on Science Blogs about how dumb some creationists are really doing anything but making oneself feel good? I mean I could go on and on about all the dumb people I meet each day or all the remarkably dumb statements I read by folks in positions of power. But so what? What have I accomplished?
Clark:Some are trying so hard to turn this into a science vs. religion conflict whereas the real problem is ignorance vs. information. By focusing in on the narrow problem they are both fighting the wrong war and also missing many bigger problems.
From where I am sitting, the Science/Religion conflict is pretty central to the real problem, inasfar as "Science" and "Religion" represent two very different methodological approaches to truth. I know that you, Clark, support a Peircean approach to religious truth, but that's not the dominant position-- unfortunately, for large numbers of people, religious "truth" is justified solely through argument from authority.
But Michael, for the vast majority of Americans scientific truth is justified for them purely through argument from authority.
Clark:But Michael, for the vast majority of Americans scientific truth is justified for them purely through argument from authority.
True. But, we can hope that they are also taught the process by which that truth is derived, can't we? There's a big difference (in my mind, at least) between saying "This is true, and this is the way Isaac Newton figured it out" and saying "This is true because some god wrote it down in the bronze age."
This issue is a bit on my mind these days, since (as I believe I have mentioned before), I live in a country where religious education is compulsory--which makes some of the "what did you learn today at school?" discussions rather interesting....
We can hope that Michael. But I guess what I'm suggesting is that we have to be realistic and recognize that most people don't want to understand science. We can (and perhaps should) criticize them for this. But it's a fact of life. Even in Europe where supposedly science is held in higher regard you have all sorts of goofy beliefs that are pretty opposed to science. At best we can say that, perhaps purely due to the decline of religion in Europe, that a few scientific ideas are accepted de facto. But I'm not sure the average European who accepts evolution and looks down their nose at Americans who don't really understands it any better nor has accepted it for any better reasons than those Americans who have rejected it.
I think the big problem is really in college. I'd be the first to admit that it's pretty hard to convey scientific thinking in teenagers for various reasons. But the failure tends to take place in the education of people in their 20's.
Of course the second biggest problem is that the media misreports on science in a horrible fashion. They sensationalize without having a clue what they are writing about.
Well, yes. This was true during the Scopes trial, and it's still true today-- although it seems to be more obvious with the former, as I read that the trial was covered somewhat like a sports announcer providing color commentary.
For some reason, I don't think many people know that *all* of the mainstream media comes from this tradition. That news should be entertaining, and therefore written as such, is not new at all.
Clark: In that I heap plenty of scorn among the shrill and shreaking of both parties.
I'm an Independent, and somewhat moderate, so I am not reluctant in the slightest to say that I believe the political parties are horribly fractured by their interest groups.
As far as Bailey, I actually know the ammunitions of his critics fairly well. Sexuality has become increasingly politicized since the 19th century or so, and has been reaching a fevered pitch nationwide in the U.S. over the last ten to twenty years. The claims of "pseudoscience" are not new, either, as they've been leveled at NARTH for quite some time. Bailey's case should not come as a surprise to anyone at all there nor anyone in the reparative/reorientation communities. Gay political groups can be quite militant (sometimes almost literally) in defending their interests and agendas and will loudly shout down anyone that questions them. It does not help, of course, that their political archrivals, usually among evangelical circles, can be just as vicious.
I think all this hand wringing about Creationism a bit humorous. We have scientists roaming around the countryside rooting out the heretics of the sacred word like so many 16th-century priestly inquisitionist. The sacred word must be defended against blasphemers and heretics. “Burn them all at the stake.” What rot. So much for dedicating their lives to reason. And Aristotle thought man a rational animal.
If truth be known, Creationism is probably the best thing to have happened to the biological sciences since Darwin. People are getting involved and looking at the issue. This is a good thing. It is not only religious beliefs that need to be challenged. So I have to smile as religious people overstep the bounds of religion and scientists over step the bounds of science. “The whole world is festering with unhappy souls.”
Rich
Rich:I think all this hand wringing about Creationism a bit humorous. We have scientists roaming around the countryside rooting out the heretics of the sacred word like so many 16th-century priestly inquisitionist. The sacred word must be defended against blasphemers and heretics. “Burn them all at the stake.” What rot.
Sorry, Rich, but I don't think the analogy holds. There is a big difference between (on the one hand) scientists doing science, and trying to clarify (for school boards, etc.) exactly what is science and what is not, and (on the other hand) the church actually burning people alive for having other beliefs. I am sure that Giordano Bruno would have much preferred to have the Church simply point out that what he was doing wasn't sanctioned theology.
As for your second point, do you really think that the biological sciences were somehow lacking in attention or interest before Creationism came along?
Rich, I think the problem with Creationism is that they are not "getting involved and looking at the issue." Rather it typically is a way of closing off inquiry rather than opening it up.
Michael that is a metaphorical “burning at the stake.” Other than that I think the analogy is a good one. Both groups seek out the heretics in order to silence them in their respective arenas.
As to attention, Clark’s percentages seen to point to that need.
Let me first off state that I think evolution, not necessarily Darwinian evolution, has the best answer for how this world was created. Having said that, Clark all parties, scientists and creationists refuse to dialog. It is not just the creationists.
Both sides rest the foundation of their arguments on assumptions which are not scientific, proved by scientific methods. In this, they are like philosophical first premises. It simply seems to me that the assumptions of evolution provide the best understanding of the data. And, as such, scientist should have no fear of any dialog with creationists. It’s not like the world is going to end because of creationism.
Rich
Rich: Michael that is a metaphorical “burning at the stake.” Other than that I think the analogy is a good one.
Well, that's a critical difference in my book, and one that should be kept in mind.
Rich: Both groups seek out the heretics in order to silence them in their respective arenas.
That's not true, actually. I don't know of any scientists that are looking to silence (much less put to death) Creationists-- rather, the objective is to keep them out of the public schools. I, for one, don't care what nonsense other people choose to believe, but I tend to get worked up if they try to present it as "science" in my children's school.
Rich: Both sides rest the foundation of their arguments on assumptions which are not scientific, proved by scientific methods
There's nothing even remotely scientific about the Creationist position. To say "this must be true, because I read it in a collection of bronze age texts" bears no relation to the scientific method. It's a false parallelism.
Rich: And, as such, scientist should have no fear of any dialog with creationists
It's not a matter of fearing dialogue with Creationists-- it is just that the Creationist position, being based upon the acceptance of dogma, is not amenable to dialogue. There is not much that can be discussed with a fundamentalist who already has all the answers written down.
I have to agree with Michael here Rich. Exactly what is there to discuss with the Creationists? Please be clear on this one.
Michael: That's not true, actually. I don't know of any scientists that are looking to silence (much less put to death) Creationists-- rather, the objective is to keep them out of the public schools. I, for one, don't care what nonsense other people choose to believe, but I tend to get worked up if they try to present it as "science" in my children's school.
The respective arenas I was talking about are the arenas of the inquisitors. And you prove my point. Rather than addressing what creationists are asserting you wish to silence them (my metaphorical “burning at the stake”)
There's nothing even remotely scientific about the Creationist position.
Random change and natural selection is also not “scientific” unless you want to view it in terms some sort of Foucaultian way. It is simply a first principle which science has adopted. As one scientist said, it’s main strength is it takes God out of the picture. If God actually exists then this first principle is terribly wrong.
To say "this must be true, because I read it in a collection of bronze age texts" bears no relation to the scientific method. It's a false parallelism.
You have already minimized and ridiculed and got wrong their first premise. Under this approach there is no dialog.
Clark: I have to agree with Michael here Rich. Exactly what is there to discuss with the Creationists? Please be clear on this one.
To discuss is not to convince. That you cannot do. Let say that this discussion is presented in a high school science text. Let’s begin with creationists’ first premise which seem to me to be that God exists. Science must really be agnostic on this point. Science can neither prove nor disprove the existence of God. Nor is there need to in order to discuss the nature of science.
I pulled up a site called Creationist Science. And looked at some of their positions. The first is that there is a problem with evolutionary theory. No duh. All one has to do is look at Gould/Dawkins fights. Expose these high schoolers to these issues. They are not stupid. They only act stupid. Discuss creationist ideas of what’s wrong and scientific ideas of what’s wrong. Point out the fallacies in the creationist’s argument. And, let the students become a bit more sophisticated about the issues. You don’t have to worry. They are probably thinking about sex ed. anyway.
Another position is about Genesis: “Why not Genesis?” Instead of dismissing it as simply a collection of bronze age texts, point out that these are bronze age texts which cannot possibly reflect the current ideas of evolution because these concept didn’t exist at this time. Approach it as a historian would. God (if there is a God) would not reveal to these evolutionary concepts because they were not equipped to understand them. He would present such a creation in terms which they would understand. You can then approach Genesis philologically. A philogical discussion of Genesis will show that the Hebrew text which is translated as ‘day’ is not the same text that Genesis uses for a 24 hour period. In fact the creation text meaning day is no where used in the Hebrew bible other than in reference to the creation. If ‘day’ in the creation text meant a 24 hr period it is logical to expect that it be written the same as elsewhere in Genesis. In fact the creation text for ‘day’ appears nowhere else in the Hebrew bible. It only appears in relation to the creation texts. There is another translation for this text and that is an unspecified period of time. It is quite logical to assume that the creation text for “day” really should be translated as “unspecified period of time.” In other words, philoligcally speaking, they have mistranslated their own text.
They also challenge the nature of science. They make it monolithic. Point out to the students that scientific method is not monolithic. There are a number of ways to do science. Discuss these ways.
Once scientists have addressed the creationists, let the creationists respond. Scientist can then respond to those arguments and then present it to the students. Let them make up their own minds. You don’t have to burn creationists at the stake.
Take the creationists serious. You don’t have to accept their conclusion but take them serious and lay out their fallacies. You will minimize the influence of the creationists if you take them serious and point out their fallacies than if you deny them the opportunity to speak in this environment. They are going to present these ideas anyway. Why not let them expresses these ideas in a forum in which these ideas can be seriously challenged. Burning them at the stake didn’t work for the Inquisition and it won’t work for science. Let creationists present their ideas. However, when they do put their feet to the fire, metaphorically speaking.
Rich
Rich: Random change and natural selection is also not “scientific” unless you want to view it in terms some sort of Foucaultian way. It is simply a first principle which science has adopted.
Random change and natural selection is not a "first principle". Scientists began by observing the world, using the scientific method, and came up with random change and natural selection as the best hypotheses to fit the facts. This is fundamentally different than choosing the creation myths in some set of texts (bronze age or otherwise) and then setting out to demonstrate why they must be accurate.
Rich: Approach it as a historian would.
I do. Historians don't view the Bible as divinely inspired, or expect it to have a better explanation of the world than the Epic of Gilgamesh or the Iliad.
Rich: A philogical discussion of Genesis will show that the Hebrew text which is translated as ‘day’ is not the same text that Genesis uses for a 24 hour period. In fact the creation text meaning day is no where used in the Hebrew bible other than in reference to the creation. If ‘day’ in the creation text meant a 24 hr period it is logical to expect that it be written the same as elsewhere in Genesis. In fact the creation text for ‘day’ appears nowhere else in the Hebrew bible
Rich, where did you learn this shit? Seriously, do you even read Hebrew? This is an outright fabrication. The word which is translated "day" in the Creation myths of Genesis is "Yom", which is the same, ordinary, standard word for "24-hour-day" used throughout the Bible (and in common everyday speech.)
Rich, if by "taking serious" you merely mean talking to people in ideas they understand then I agree. However it seems to me that in your example you aren't taking seriously the Creationists. Far from it. You're rejecting it out of hand and then looking for better ways to communicate the scientific view.
Michael: Random change and natural selection is not a "first principle". Scientists began by observing the world, using the scientific method, and came up with random change and natural selection as the best hypotheses to fit the facts. This is fundamentally different than choosing the creation myths in some set of texts (bronze age or otherwise) and then setting out to demonstrate why they must be accurate.
Under your example, first principle would be our senses can be trusted. This would be the first principle for the observational sciences. Having said that, random change and natural selection is the first principle of the evolutionary sciences. What makes it first principle is that it cannot be proved by scientific methods (whatever methods one chooses to use) but rather must simply be accepted as the best premise. It remains a hypothesis because it cannot be proven and therefore must simply be accepted.
Michael: Rich, where did you learn this shit?
Michael, it is not shit. It is Bereshit. Please get the spelling correct. Now, let us open our Bibles and turn to Bereshit 1:13 wayəhî-‘ereḇ wayəhî-ḇōqer ywōm šəlîšî : f. Notice ywōm šəlîšî is translated in KJV as “the third day.” However, it should be translated as “day (ywōm) three (šəlîšî)” there is no definite article in the Hebrew verse. Now look at Bereshit 22:4 bayywōm haššəlîšî wayyiśśā’ ’aḇərâām ’eṯ-‘ênāyw wayyarə’ ’eṯ-hammāqwōm mērāḥōq: This is translated as “Then on the third day Abraham lifted up his eyes, and saw the place afar off.” Here ‘the third day” is written bay-ywōm haš-šəlîšî. Adding a prefix to the number and to the word ‘day’ indicates the text is discussing a numbered 24 hour ‘day’. Adding a prefix or adding ‘and’ and the prefix is how 24 hour period is written in the Hebrew bible: bay-ywōm haš-šəlîšî. There is only one place in the Hebrew bible in which ywōm šəlîšî is written without prefixes. And, that is in Bereshit 1:13.
Now ywōm can mean either a 24 hr period or it can mean a duration of time such as in the word ‘age’. Since in Hebrew a numbered 24 hr day has a prefix for the number and a prefix for the term ‘day’ and since ywōm šəlîšî contains no prefixes the term does not refer to a numbered 24 hr ‘day’. Therefore, the term ywōm šəlîšî must refer to a third period of creation time or a third age of creation.
At least that is how I understand it.
Clark: However it seems to me that in your example you aren't taking seriously the Creationists. Far from it. You're rejecting it out of hand and then looking for better ways to communicate the scientific view.
Too take them serious does not mean I have to agree with them. It simply means that I do not dismiss their assertions as bronze age myths. By the way Michael, I’ve decided it’s best if you were not one of the protagonists in these discussions. :)))
Rich
Rich, the use of the definite article does not change the meaning of the word. "A third day" and "the third day" have different contexts, but still refer to the same notion of "day".
However, even if the Hebrew used a different word (let's say "age" or "era"), it wouldn't make a damned bit of difference to the discussion at hand. Science doesn't work by looking at various creation myths handed down to us and then choosing which one seems to fit the facts. Genesis (and the Epic of Gilgamesh, etc.) don't belong in the science curriculum, full stop. What the ancient Hebrews (or Sumerians) thought about cosmology may be a nice topic for a history class, but has no bearing on our scientific understanding of the world.
I'm sorry if calling the biblical creation story a "bronze age myth" offends you, but that's the fact of the matter. I don't dispute the religious importance of these myths to those who happen to believe them, but that's not science, that's something else.
Just a few quick comments. And I'm hoping to have the new blog up this weekend.
Michael, it is not shit. It is Bereshit.
OK, if nothing else you get style points for that zinger.
Too take them serious does not mean I have to agree with them. It simply means that I do not dismiss their assertions as bronze age myths.
Well I think to take seriously implies more than that. A string theorist might well disagree with a quantum loop theorist. But they recognize their "opponent's" theory as a real possibility. That is, it is something worth investigating even if it is wrong.
From your comments I don't think you really entertain the Creationist position as anything more than extremely shoddy thinking. Perhaps understandable shoddy thinking given their background. But nothing you'd really entertain. So to me your own position is much closer to treating them as "bronze age myths" than something to be entertained seriously.
At best you're adopting Michael's position only a bit more politely.
Having said that, random change and natural selection is the first principle of the evolutionary sciences. What makes it first principle is that it cannot be proved by scientific methods (whatever methods one chooses to use) but rather must simply be accepted as the best premise.
It seems to me that they aren't first principles - if only because science has so few real first principles. The very idea of first principles is much more about deductive sciences whereas science proper is much more about induction and abduction. I'd argue that inductively random change and natural selection are very well established and aren't first principles in the least.
To add, when first presented way back by Darwin they still weren't first principles. Rather they were hypotheses presented precinded from the data he had. Their explanatory role and their success in the same provided them with support. As evolution was tested and refined their success gave them strength via the abductive process.
As such they really are no different than any theoretical entity put forth in physics.
1. Go back and read what I had to say about the use of the Hebrew word “ywom’. You obviously didn’t get beyond my mention of the definite article. The existence of prefixes or the lack of prefixes does change the meaning of the word. I took the time to lay all that out, you can take the time to read it.
2. Next you can apologize for calling me a liar.
3. There is nothing wrong with linguistically analyzing an ancient text in a science class. This is doubly true if the analysis shows the text does not support their interpretation. That is unless you don’t think linguistics is a science.
4. In your rigidity of thinking, you missed the whole point of what was being said. To take them seriously is to discuss their claims and to show why their claims are not scientific. But you go ahead and continue calling for the “burning at the stake of the heretics.” It didn’t do the Inquisition much good. I don’t think your way is any more enlightened.
Rich
Clark: At best you're adopting Michael's position only a bit more politely.
I am not taking Michael’s position at all. Personally, I come close to being a theistic evolutionists as I think you are. With regards to Genesis, I believe it to be a true account of how the world was created in so far as this account has been translated correctly. Having said that I don’t believe it to be science nor was it presented as science. I do believe that it agrees with science in those parts we actually understand. Day one is a bit problematic. But to say it agrees with the scientific account does not mean it is science and should be accepted as science. In addition, I can disagree with creationist thinking without having to denigrate their thinking. But I do believe it important to show why creationist thinking is not scientific. This, however, does not entail accepting God does not exist. On the existence of God, since that cannot be scientifically established, science should be agnostic.
According to my dictionary ‘serious’ in this situation is: “demanding careful consideration.” That is how I am using the term.
Clark: As such they really are no different than any theoretical entity put forth in physics.
I disagree. Theoretical entities in physics are theoretical in the sense that they are not observably established, at least not yet. They have been established mathematically. There is no mathematical analysis establishing random change and natural selection. Nor was there any observational data establishing random change and natural selection. What Darwin observed was adaptation. What he did was to hypothesize an alternative explanation to the one in current use which involved divine intervention. He did not invent evolution. Building upon Darwin's hypothesis, science has erected the evolutionary sciences. Evolution did not justify Darwin’s idea. Evolution was already an established scientific principle at the time Darwin set out in the Beagle. Subsequent evolutionary studies have also not established this idea for the simple reason that the idea cannot be scientifically established. That it agrees with or gives explanation to current evolutionary studies is not at all surprising. It is the unproved foundation from which scientists begin their study of evolution. To that extent it operates as a first principle.
Rich
Typically theoretical entities are established because they are something real that offers explanatory power. Now they may not be "existents" in the sense of being a thing rather than a structure. But that divide is blurry. (Consider, for example, virtual particles in quantum electrodynamics)
The issue of "observational" vs. "theoretical" is at best muddy and at worst problematic. But even if we take it loosely as those things easily measured versus those things not easily measured I don't think what you say holds.
To claim that theoretical entities are established mathematically is simply false. It can be somewhat true, such as with virtual particles. However just as often the math is describing the theoretical entities. The theoretical entity doesn't arise as an element of surprise out of the mathematics. (Consider Einstein's fudge factor in the expansion of the universe)
What you say about chance and selection just isn't true, from what I can see.
Rich:
1) I did read what you wrote about prefixes and definite articles. The prefix in question is best translated "On", and the difference between "B'yom hashlishi" and "yom shlishli" is captured quite well in the English "On the third day" and "a third day". I remain unconvinced that the presence of the prefix changes the root meaning of the noun, and view the explanation as fabricated to fit a preconcieved desire to redefine "day". Personally, as I said, it makes no difference to me if you define "day" metaphorically as "era", as it has no bearing on the bigger issue.
2) I do apologize if I called you a liar; I did not mean to. I didn't mean to imply that the fabrication was yours originally, or that you were knowingly uttering a falsehood.
3) Of course there is nothing wrong with linguistic analysis in a linguistics class. That's not the issue at hand. The question is whether Creationism has any place in a Science class. I say "No", because Creationism is the opposite of Science. It is not a search for better explanations based on the scientific method; rather, it is an attempt to mold the facts to fit a pre-ordained written account.
4) I don't think the claims of Creationism are worth taking seriously because of the methodology involved. If we're going to open that door, we ought to allow the Flying Spaghetti Monster equal time.
Michael: 1) I did read what you wrote about prefixes and definite articles. The prefix in question is best translated "On", and the difference between "B'yom hashlishi" and "yom shlishli" is captured quite well in the English "On the third day" and "a third day". I remain unconvinced that the presence of the prefix changes the root meaning of the noun, and view the explanation as fabricated to fit a preconcieved desire to redefine "day". Personally, as I said, it makes no difference to me if you define "day" metaphorically as "era", as it has no bearing on the bigger issue.
There are TWO root meanings for the Hebrew word ywon, not just one. One is the a 24 hr. period. In English this is well represented by the word ‘day’. The other is a period of indeterminate time. A good word in English that matches this sense is ‘age’. This is not an attempt to redefine ‘day’. It is an attempt to determine which of the two root meanings best describes what the writer of Hebrew was trying to say: ‘day’ or ‘age’. Throughout the Hebrew bible the Hebrew word meaning a 24 hr period uses the prefixes. This is an indication that the word should be translated ‘day’. There is only one place in the Hebrew bible that the word is used without the prefixes. It is in Genesis and it is used in connection with the period of Creation time. It is quite logical to assume that since the writer didn’t use the prefixes he had the other root meaning in mind. ‘Age’ would be the logical choice. The fact this doesn’t convince you is no concern of mine. A man cannot be convinced against his will. It seems to me that if you disagree you need to break my argument, if you can.
For you this means nothing. I sense you are too ridged to be able to enter into any form of discussion with creationists. For those who do wish to engage with creationists it means that creationists’ basic assumptions are wrong. This undermines their whole argument. This is similar to those arguing that the founding fathers are not Christians. You can ignore them as kooks and let people be convinced of their assertions. Or, you can enter into dialogue and show that their assumptions are false. You seem to want to take the former approach but I much prefer the latter.
Rich
Rich, as you point out, there are two disagreements here, one minor, and one major.
As for the minor one, do you have any evidence (outside of your reading of Genesis 1) for the second root meaning of "Yom"?
In terms of the bigger issue (of how to best respond to Creationists), I'm curious as to how you propose showing that the Creationist's basic assumptions (i.e., believing that a set of bronze age texts represents the unequivocal truth) are mistaken. I'm serious here-- what's the best way to engage with a "true believer" so as to point out the absurdity of their beliefs?
Clark: “Typically theoretical entities are established because they are something real that offers explanatory power.”
If that were true there would not have been the opposition to Darwin’s theory that there was. A prerequisite to accepting what Darwin asserted was the complete secularization of science. This had not yet happened at the time Darwin wrote.
Unlike Einstein’s theory of relativity Darwin’s theory cannot be used to discover new information. (If the theory is true, we should be able to discover X). The only use of this theory is to attempt to place new information within a certain context. However, this context cannot scientifically be proven true. It must be accepted. It is this inability to be proven and therefore must simply be accepted that makes his theory similar to philosophical first principles.
Clark: What you say about chance and selection just isn't true, from what I can see.
It is not a matter of “truth” it is a matter of understanding. As I understand it, Darwin’s argument revolved around random mutation and natural selection.
Rich
Michael: As for the minor one, do you have any evidence (outside of your reading of Genesis 1) for the second root meaning of "Yom"?
The Old Testament Hebrew Lexicon provides several different 24 hr usages but also “time, period (general)” In Aramaic yowm always refers to a twenty-four hour period when the word is modified by a definite or cardinal number. This is often used to deny the extended period translation. Even if it was applicable to the Hebrew it has no relevance here as the numbers in question are ordinal numbers.
Michael: I'm serious here-- what's the best way to engage with a "true believer" so as to point out the absurdity of their beliefs?
Remember you are engaging “true-believers” for the benefit of the third party which might be swayed by the “true-believer’s” arguments. I think the discussion would follow something similar to how we have discussed “ywom” only without the use of flash words. :)) Look at their assertions and layout where they are wrong. You then allow the third-party to chose the strongest argument.
Rich
Rich: Can you think of any place (outside of Genesis 1) where "yom" clearly means something other than a 24-hour day? (I have my concordances and lexicons packed away in the attic.)
I've always treated the "time, period (general)" meaning as metaphorical in my translations, and can't think of an instance (off the top of my head) where that wouldn't be the case.
As for the second point: I thought the point was to convince the true believer, not play to the crowd. I assume that independent (adult) third-parties would see the Creationist position as absurd, so I'm not too concerned about making the case to someone neutral on the issue. The question for me is: if someone is already deeply committed to an irrational position, is there any use in attempting to use reason to sway them?
Rich, evolution isn't limited to Darwin. How Darwin came up with the idea is somewhat irrelevant for how the idea works within the scientific community and how the theoretical terms function. Likewise how Maxwell came up with Maxwell's laws is largely irrelevant to how the laws were thought of in the scientific community.
Perhaps I shouldn't enable a discussion that is probably irrelevant, but if you need a concordance, there is one available online:
http://www.eliyah.com/lexicon.html
Michael Rich: Can you think of any place (outside of Genesis 1) where "yom" clearly means something other than a 24-hour day? (I have my concordances and lexicons packed away in the attic.)
I've always treated the "time, period (general)" meaning as metaphorical in my translations, and can't think of an instance (off the top of my head) where that wouldn't be the case.
What is the meaning of the word jam? You cannot give the meaning of the word jam because there is no “the meaning.” Jam has several meanings. Therefore the word must be placed within a phrase to provide the clues as to the meaning of the word. “Yom” or “Ywom” is no different. The Old Testament Hebrew Lexicon provides at least two definitions, not a definition and a metaphor. One is a 24 hr period and the other is a period of undefined time. How are we to know which definition is the correct definition in the creation story? Since there are two meanings we would expect to see two different phrase structures to provide that clue. The only place I know in the Hebrew Bible in which the phrase “ywom” + number is used where neither has a prefix is in the creation story in Genesis. In all other cases where it is clear that a 24 hour period is being described, even in Genesis itself, the phrase has a different structure: (prefix) ywom + (prefix) number, or ywom + (prefix) number. The fact that no prefixes are used in the creation account but prefixes are used everywhere else where we can clearly identify a 24 hour period indicates that the second meaning is likely to be the correct meaning for the Genesis story.
If you find this hard to swallow, that’s fine. However, your problem is with the Old Testament Hebrew Lexicon and not with me.
Michael I assume that independent (adult) third-parties would see the Creationist position as absurd.
Michael, you’re working here with a handicap. You don’t believe in God and more particular, you don’t believe in the Christian God. Ninety percent of Americans list themselves as Christians. For them to see it from your perspective you need them to reject their God. Yours is the losing proposition. You are offering them evolution at the expense of God. Creationists are offering them God at the expense of evolution. You will lose this debate because God fulfills a affective need within people. Affection will always defeat logic because we are affective beings not logical beings. My advice is “don’t assume.”
Rich
Rich: However, your problem is with the Old Testament Hebrew Lexicon and not with me.
I suspect that this may indeed be the case. As I said, I haven't had time to chase down all of the references, but I can't think of any instance in the Hebrew Bible where the "undefined period of time" definition is indicated. Unlike the English "jam", which has distinct unrelated meanings (as a verb, and as a noun), the line between the two alleged meanings of "yom" is quite fuzzy-- as "day" can be used metaphorically (simultaneously extending and retaining the core meaning). If I wanted to look at it cynically, I'd suspect that the "indeterminate period of time" meaning was placed in the lexicon precisely to cover Genesis 1.
In any event, the point is (for me, at least) moot-- I'm happy to stipulate that the "days" of creation are not necessarily intended to be 24-hours in length.
Rich: For them to see it from your perspective you need them to reject their God. Yours is the losing proposition. You are offering them evolution at the expense of God.
Not necessarily. I'm offering them what Gould calls "non-overlapping magisteria." In other words, they can believe whatever they want to believe about God, but their beliefs have no bearing on science. (And, most likely, science has no bearing on their beliefs.)
Although 90% of Americans may identify themselves as Christian, I believe that the number who believe that the Bible is literally true is significantly smaller.
Has this become an orphan blog?
Rich
Sorry, I have a new drupal one set up. It's just that I'm so busy with work and family I've not had time to really dedicate to it. So I'm holding off until I do.
BTW Clark, it appears that you're not paying attention. We miss you.
Just work. Getting the chocolate company going has been almost ridiculous amounts of work...
Clark: since I've got my own business I can empathize. Best of luck and making the world a sweeter place!
I've closed comments in order to avoid spam since I don't check this older blog as much anymore.
and Theology
Number of unique visitors:
Blogged by Clark Goble