tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2713231510890712652.post5001643994798614188..comments2024-03-02T08:27:42.344+00:00Comments on Theological Scribbles: David Attenborough - Please stick to biologyRobin Parryhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08856329564156757485noreply@blogger.comBlogger9125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2713231510890712652.post-8775284917993962072019-02-07T08:02:25.370+00:002019-02-07T08:02:25.370+00:00As a biologist myself, I found it often that mutat...As a biologist myself, I found it often that mutation/randomness was mixed up with variations that are inbuilt in the design of organisms for adaptation. Speciation is not a problem for biblical creationism, neither is natural selection. <br /><br />We do have enough data to know what mutations in general do to our genome, in a long run. It is always downhill: degeneration, no uphill creation of new information, which is required to turn a microbe to a microbiologist. A cell is like an automatic city that will duplicate itself. We now know too much to believe in evolution would have made even a cell. <br /><br />Theologically, it is not compatible to believe God who loves will use death to create. The fossil record is a record of burial, not creation using evolution, which would entails many years of death and suffering before Adam and Eve sinned and brought death and suffering to the creation.ChildofLighthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05168420367362271947noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2713231510890712652.post-22138196352241679852009-02-08T20:08:00.000+00:002009-02-08T20:08:00.000+00:00Simonsorry for the delay in replying. Non-literal ...Simon<BR/><BR/>sorry for the delay in replying. Non-literal readings of Genesis long predate the 12th C. e.g., Origen in 3rd C and Augustine in 4th-5th took a non-literal line.<BR/><BR/>The issue of randomness and evolution is not a major problem. The randomness may simply be a comment on our epistemic limitations. We simply do not possess enough info to be able to predict then outcome of mutattions. An all-knowing being could predict - indeed direct - such things without a problem. Alternatively, randomness might be part of the design. And the end results are quite possibly not as hard to predict as you might imagine. Simon Conway Morris, a specialist on convergent evolution at Cambridge University argues that the fact that we can observe the same basic designs evolving independently over and over again (e.g., eyes, wings, legs) suggests that evlutions goes down certain limited tracks. God could use such a system to create intelligent life even if he was not over fussed about whether that intelligent life was precisely like us or simply rather like us. Perhaps the number of limbs, for instance, was a secondary concern.<BR/><BR/>For a far more sensible set of comments than my own and for some details on a Darwin-compatible interpretation of the Bible I can do no better than recommend the following book by Denis Alexander (another biologist in Cambridge).<BR/><BR/>Denis Alexander, "Creation or Evolution" Monarch, 2008<BR/><BR/>It is a brialliant defence and explanation of evolution as well as a good case for it being Bible-compatibleRobin Parryhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08856329564156757485noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2713231510890712652.post-74301899227426080272009-02-03T15:27:00.000+00:002009-02-03T15:27:00.000+00:00Robin, I agree with you. My point about dominion ...Robin, I agree with you. My point about dominion is against those who think that as we're part of the animal kingdom, there's nothing 'special' about human beings. But if there isn't, why do we still feel as though we're responsible?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2713231510890712652.post-88137217672106047802009-02-03T15:20:00.000+00:002009-02-03T15:20:00.000+00:00Ah, interesting. Yes, I understand that for a ver...Ah, interesting. Yes, I understand that for a very long time sensible Christians had decided that Genesis could not be literally true (someone once told me that this was the case as far back as the twelve hundreds (?)). However, I was also under the impression that, even when taken as an allegory, it is difficult to square biblical creation with the process of the emergence of species via evolution (which has a certain amount of randomness associated with it), and I thought that's what Attenborough was getting at - i.e. the human being is not a necessary consequence of evolution. I don't think this was supposed to disprove the possibility of a `first cause' kind of God though.<BR/><BR/>This reminds me of a conversation I once watched between the Archbishop of Canterbury and Richard Dawkins (yes, okay, I know :-)), where the Archbishop was asked how he could interpret the Bible, in light of the discoveries of Darwin, and he didn't seem to have a very convincing answer - which he readily admitted. Of course, the program could have been badly edited, and the Archbishop might well have had a convincing interpretation of Genesis.<BR/><BR/>The thing is, and you obviously find this very annoying, this Darwin-compatible interpretation is not the one taught to us in schools, and I still haven't found out what it is.lemonheadhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04638754511201100257noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2713231510890712652.post-80928661681291752772009-02-03T14:22:00.000+00:002009-02-03T14:22:00.000+00:00TerryGenesis speaks of human 'rule' over the rest ...Terry<BR/><BR/>Genesis speaks of human 'rule' over the rest of creation. This need not make us responsible for everything that happens on earth - indeed I know of no Jew of Christian that has ever supposed that we were.<BR/><BR/>I do not see what is problematic with the idea that humans are animals but a special kind of animal with a special kind of responsibility. Why is that having your cake and eating it?<BR/><BR/>In fact I think that the message of responsible 'dominion' (for want of a better word) is very much what humans need to hear right now. We certainly have a lot of power to affect the environments in which we live - we need to behave responsibly and Genesis calls us to precisely that.Robin Parryhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08856329564156757485noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2713231510890712652.post-88458383207234343412009-02-03T14:17:00.000+00:002009-02-03T14:17:00.000+00:00SimonThanks very much for those comments.If all th...Simon<BR/><BR/>Thanks very much for those comments.<BR/><BR/>If all that DA concluded was that Darwinism made a literal interpretation of Genesis 1 problematic then few would object. In fact the majority of thoughtful Christians had abandoned a strictly literal interpretation of Gen 1 centuries before Darwin. <BR/><BR/>The problem is arguing that Darwin showed that a biblical view of creation (which should not be reduced to a literal interpretation of Genesis 1) was non-viable - he did not. And even more problematic is his claiming that Darwin made God redundant. He did not. <BR/><BR/>Regarding 'dominion'. Well Genesis was written in Hebrew not Latin and so the etymology of the English word 'dominion' is not directly relevant. And besides, the issue is how the concept of human 'dominion' function in Genesis and in Jewish and Christian history. Did it function to give humans permission to do whatever they like with the natural world? Attenborough said that it did but here he is simply wrong. Responsible and wise care is mandated - not uncontrolled abuse of the earth. Genesis 1 is good for the environment not bad.<BR/><BR/>Regarding the idea that humans are different from other animals. Well, the Jewish and Christian traditions - rooted in Genesis - have affirmed that humans are both like and unlike other animals. Thus it is that Thomas Aquinas, for instance, would refer to humans and 'other animals'. The insight that we are related to other animals is hardly a fresh revelation of Darwinism. Indeed not even the genealogical nature of the relationship was a Darwinian insight (there were evolutionists before Darwin).<BR/><BR/>But whilst we humans are animals it does not follow that we are not different in some significant ways from other animals. The Bible says that we are but then so does pretty much every scientific, philosophical and religious system of thought in human history. Clarifying exactly what is different is not always easy but it does seem pretty obvious that we are. How many other animals, for instance, would be capable of creating artificial intelligence? Is it bad for the environment to affirm so? I cannot see that it must be.Robin Parryhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08856329564156757485noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2713231510890712652.post-85570217707410652512009-02-03T07:59:00.000+00:002009-02-03T07:59:00.000+00:00I share your frustration, Robin. I've been enjoyin...I share your frustration, Robin. I've been enjoying watching these programmes on Darwin (and I wouldn't mind visiting Down House - it's not far from where I live), but it seems that there's never an anti-Christianity comment far away (though to be fair, none of them are vitriolic comments, such as a certain Oxford professor would volley). Can't these people read Denis Alexander, Ernest Lucas or even a basic commentary on Genesis?!<BR/><BR/>The point about 'dominion' is interesting, though. The theor of evolution rightly shows that humans must be considered part of the animal kingdom - and yet for some reason, humans still assume that they are 'responsible' for the rest of the animal kingdom. It seems to me that we want to have our cake and eat it!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2713231510890712652.post-79914785530084873262009-02-02T23:47:00.000+00:002009-02-02T23:47:00.000+00:00...and as far as the Independent article goes, I t......and as far as the Independent article goes, I thought I saw a bit of an argument in the piece :-). It went something like this: the Bible states that the human race should be given `dominion' (derived from the latin, `dominium', meaning `lordship', or `right to ownership') over the animal kingdom. This biblical view is therefore problematic when it comes to the environment, because it implies that the human race is separate from the animal kingdom. Evolution shows this to not be so. We are wonderfully related to every single living thing! So, Sir Attenborough was merely saying that the scientific world view could produce a more environmentally conscious society. I don't think there is very much controversial about that. I can't see how it could be argued any other way.lemonheadhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04638754511201100257noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2713231510890712652.post-70996202070360953612009-02-02T23:22:00.000+00:002009-02-02T23:22:00.000+00:00I thought the actual program was pretty objective ...I thought the actual program was pretty objective on the question of God: Before Darwin people believed that `Genesis I' was broadly true (if not literally so). Darwin showed that the separate species arose from a process and were not individually created, and so therefore the biblical view of creation had to be abandoned. I don't think that is stepping very far from biology is it?lemonheadhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04638754511201100257noreply@blogger.com