Does the bible actually teach evolution?

[Mojo]

http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/interp/evolution.html

Does the Bible teach evolution?
And God said, Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb yielding seed, and the fruit tree. -- Genesis 1:11
And God said, Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after his kind: and it was so. -- Genesis 1:24

Notice that God lets "the earth bring forth" the plants and animals, rather than create them directly. So maybe the creationists have it all wrong. Maybe Genesis is not so anti-evolution after all.

Only insofar as there is so much of it, and it has sufficient contradictions, differing translations, and obscurely worded passages that it can be (and has been) tortured into supporting just about anything.

But really:

 

[SOdhner]

I like what you pointed out, that it is from the earth, but the fact is the people who reject evolution for biblical reasons think that the bible is literally true - so you still have to deal with the idea that everything was created in six days. No matter what other wording you find, you can't avoid the lack of time in the literal interpretation of the bible.

 

[Emet]

No.

(The) Bible (is) not a scientific document: "Looking in the Bible for a scientific account of origins is like looking in the phone directory for a recipe for angel cake." Tom Harpur

http://www.religioustolerance.org/ev_bibl.htm

 

[noreligion]

http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/interp/evolution.html

Does the Bible teach evolution?
And God said, Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb yielding seed, and the fruit tree. -- Genesis 1:11
And God said, Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after his kind: and it was so. -- Genesis 1:24

Notice that God lets "the earth bring forth" the plants and animals, rather than create them directly. So maybe the creationists have it all wrong. Maybe Genesis is not so anti-evolution after all.

Now you resort to copypasta? Any original thoughts of your own about this?

 

[Cainkane1]

Abiogenesis is nothing to do with evolution

if I had a dollar........

The bible teaches that everything was created by God exactly as it is now (with one exception), so theres been no change, so therefore it doesn't teach evolution.

death of thread

I didn't say it was. No abiogenesis no evolution. In a round about way it could be said that inorganic chemicals "evolved" into life of course this is very very roundabout I have to admit.

 

[bokonon]

4.) For the longest time, people thought that life arose spontaneously (spontaneous generation) all the time. This was believed to be consistent with the biblical teachings and such a spontaneous occurrence would completely negate the concept of evolution (how can a species evolve if life occurred by magic with out trait propogation?) It wasn't until Pastuer did his swan neck experiments that this idea was considered wrong. The lesson here is, If the text of the bible is so vague as to be interpreted to support a notion so contradictory to evolution, it is ludicrous to claim it teaches evolution.

I would say that's not a valid lesson, since the same criticism could be made of reality itself. For a long time, people "read" reality and concluded that life arose spontaneously. Subsequent interpretations are at odds with that conclusion.

The lesson, for me, is that the human mind has a remarkable ability to shape and filter facts to support pre-existing beliefs.

Though I agree that the Bible does not teach evolution.

 

[joobz]

I would say that's not a valid lesson, since the same criticism could be made of reality itself. For a long time, people "read" reality and concluded that life arose spontaneously. Subsequent interpretations are at odds with that conclusion.

The lesson, for me, is that the human mind has a remarkable ability to shape and filter facts to support pre-existing beliefs.

Though I agree that the Bible does not teach evolution.

The question is "Does the bible teach evolution"
If it can be interpreted to support views that are completely not in sink with evolution, it can hardly be considered to teach evolution.

 

[bokonon]

The question is "Does the bible teach evolution"
If it can be interpreted to support views that are completely not in sink with evolution, it can hardly be considered to teach evolution.

My point is that the universe itself has, over even larger stretches of time, been interpreted to support views that are not completely in sync with evolution. The problem may therefore be in the interpretation rather than the text.

I agree with your conclusion, but not with the reason you cite in support of it.

 

[Cainkane1]

Now you resort to copypasta? Any original thoughts of your own about this?

Not really any thoughts of my own on this except to add that this is possibly the origin of theistic evolution theories. I copied and pasted this because it includes the entire text from the bible and it would be easier to copy and paste it rather than to memorize it and put it into my own words.

I personally don't believe the bible makes a claim for evolution. The wording like many others have pointed out is subject to interpretation and the fact that it is intriguingly evolution like is merely one of many said interpretations.

I wanted other people to express their opinions.

 

[joobz]

My point is that the universe itself has, over even larger stretches of time, been interpreted to support views that are not completely in sync with evolution. The problem may therefore be in the interpretation rather than the text.

I agree with your conclusion, but not with the reason you cite in support of it.

interesting take. My problem here is that reality (as an example) isn't good.
1) Reality doesn't teach anything. It just is. It is up to us to determine what it's lessons are. The bible, in contrast, is supposed to teach us something.
2) Reality is exactly what we are trying to learn about. Miss interpretations of it reflect internal misunderstandings of what we are learning. The bible is describing a secondary (external) occurrence (reality). It isn't wrong at all to state that multiple reinterpretations of the text to fit new understandings of reality demonstrates a clear failing of that text.
3) (A weaker point). This claim of teaching evolution is inherently an argument meant to support the truthfulness of the bible. However, in order for us to accept this, we must first accept that the bible does in fact represent truth and that it is only our interpretations that could be wrong. This is the only way to overlook point 2 above. In other words, we end up with a bootstrap argument.

 

[noreligion]

Not really any thoughts of my own on this except to add that this is possibly the origin of theistic evolution theories. I copied and pasted this because it includes the entire text from the bible and it would be easier to copy and paste it rather than to memorize it and put it into my own words.

I personally don't believe the bible makes a claim for evolution. The wording like many others have pointed out is subject to interpretation and the fact that it is intriguingly evolution like is merely one of many said interpretations.

I wanted other people to express their opinions.

I am not referring to the bible quote but the text you took from SAB. And no the SAB was not the beginning of the theistic evolution stories nor was the bible. It was simply because some theists (that apparently mattered in those circles) recognized the OVERWHELMING evidence for evolution and wanted to reconcile it with their theistic beliefs so they decided that evolution isn't contradictory with Genesis. Of course that is deep bovine excretory matter.

 

[bokonon]

interesting take. My problem here is that reality (as an example) isn't good.
1) Reality doesn't teach anything. It just is. It is up to us to determine what it's lessons are. The bible, in contrast, is supposed to teach us something.

Both are subject to interpretation. Both are filled with ambiguity and contradiction, which means people with different viewpoints can often find support in the very same source.

To me, the relevant question is, "Is this a valid interpretation?" The fact that there may have been different interpretations in the past is interesting, but not damning.

Let's take the U.S. Constitution as an example. In Plessy vs Ferguson (1896), the Supreme Court found that the Constitution supported the doctrine of "Separate but Equal". In Brown vs Board of Education of Topeka (1954), the Supreme Court found that the Constitution did not support the doctrine of "Separate but Equal".

Does the Constitution support "Separate but Equal"?

 

[joobz]

Both are subject to interpretation. Both are filled with ambiguity and contradiction, which means people with different viewpoints can often find support in the very same source.

exactly. But than, that source doesn't "teach" that concept.

To me, the relevant question is, "Is this a valid interpretation?" The fact that there may have been different interpretations in the past is interesting, but not damning.

It isn't damning, but it does weaken a point when two contradictory views can be considered to be both "valid interpretations".

Let's take the U.S. Constitution as an example. In Plessy vs Ferguson (1896), the Supreme Court found that the Constitution supported the doctrine of "Separate but Equal". In Brown vs Board of Education of Topeka (1954), the Supreme Court found that the Constitution did not support the doctrine of "Separate but Equal".

Does the Constitution support "Separate but Equal"?

great point. However, as I have been emphasizing, I would argue that the Constitution certainly doesn't TEACH separate but equal. The fact that the text could be interpreted to support either case supports my argument that it doesn't teach it.

 

[TubbaBlubba]

This is a horrible thread about constipated post-hoc fitting of science into a nonsense creation tale.

 

[Marduk]

I didn't say it was. No abiogenesis no evolution. In a round about way it could be said that inorganic chemicals "evolved" into life of course this is very very roundabout I have to admit.

This is what you said

It actually does seem to teach a form of abiogenesis.

are you now saying that the bible teaches that inorganic chemicals "evolved" into life or would you now admit that :-
1.The bible doesn't teach anything related to evolution at all, even if you allow abiogenesis into the umbrella term of misunderstood biblical science ?
2. you have moved the goalposts from your original claim
3. the bible is not about science no matter how much people want to pretend it is to shore up their lack of faith

over to you buddy

 

[Marduk]

Not really any thoughts of my own on this except to add that this is possibly the origin of theistic evolution theories.

The bible was not the origin of theistic evolution theories, that claim falls to St Augustine of Hippo interpetation of the text. You can't have a book as an origin of something when it doesn't specifically state something.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Augustine_of_Hippo
Though his teachings were later rejected in favour of innerrancy

 

[noreligion]

The bible was not the origin of theistic evolution theories, that claim falls to St Augustine of Hippo interpetation of the text. You can't have a book as an origin of something when it doesn't specifically state something.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Augustine_of_Hippo
Though his teachings were later rejected in favour of innerrancy

Did you read the wikipedia entry you posted? It says "Augustine took the view that everything in the universe was created simultaneously by God, and not in seven calendar days like a plain account of Genesis would require" which does not speak about theistic evolution but creationism.

 

[Cainkane1]

This is what you said

are you now saying that the bible teaches that inorganic chemicals "evolved" into life or would you now admit that :-
1.The bible doesn't teach anything related to evolution at all, even if you allow abiogenesis into the umbrella term of misunderstood biblical science ?
2. you have moved the goalposts from your original claim
3. the bible is not about science no matter how much people want to pretend it is to shore up their lack of faith

over to you buddy

Well this certainly has turned into a negative exchange. The hocus pocus nature of the bible says a lot that can be interpreted in many ways. The ancients knew nothing of evolution and any similarity between this portion of the bible and evolutional is intriguing but coincidental.

 

[Marduk]

Did you read the wikipedia entry you posted? It says "Augustine took the view that everything in the universe was created simultaneously by God, and not in seven calendar days like a plain account of Genesis would require" which does not speak about theistic evolution but creationism.

Thats only because he recanted his earlier claim that Genesis was allegorical (remember we were discussing the origins of theistic evolution)
my fault though, wrong link
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theistic_evolution#Acceptance

The hocus pocus nature of the bible says a lot that can be interpreted in many ways.

only if you can't read and have no faith, its pretty clear in Genesis that God creates everything at the same time on specific days, that people then attempt to claim a day is millions of years is just bs, that would be the same as claiming that the Hebrews responsible for creating the book knew about the real history of the earth, but decided not to mention it and instead based their ideas on the Babylonians who's ideas they ripped off in the first place.

 

[Cainkane1]

Thats only because he recanted his earlier claim that Genesis was allegorical (remember we were discussing the origins of theistic evolution)
my fault though, wrong link
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theistic_evolution#Acceptance



only if you can't read and have no faith, its pretty clear in Genesis that God creates everything at the same time on specific days, that people then attempt to claim a day is millions of years is just bs, that would be the same as claiming that the Hebrews responsible for creating the book knew about the real history of the earth, but decided not to mention it and instead based their ideas on the Babylonians who's ideas they ripped off in the first place.

Wrong. I can read very well but I have no faith in bronze age drivel. I guess in a book as big as the bible is you will sometimes find some truth in it but its very sparse and mixed in with superstition, contradictions and nonsense.