• Welcome to the new Internet Infidels Discussion Board, formerly Talk Freethought.

Increasing acceptance of biological evolution in the US

Pre science the idea of a first human pair woud have been logical, as was a creator.

I always took the Eden store to represent the beginning of self awareness and knowledge. Without knowledge and awareness there can be no sin. Eat from the tree of knowledge and one is no longer living in the natural world.

I read somewhere the story may represent the transition from a free nomadic life to the fixed agricultural society. People had to work at living.
 
I read somewhere the story may represent the transition from a free nomadic life to the fixed agricultural society. People had to work at living.
But then, they wouldn't have been kicked out of Eden so much as imprisoned in New Jersey....
 
Maybe you got my point, or not...but as I tried to say, I think that many of them think that if they give up on "poof God makes the humans" on some day (whether it's is YEC, or old earth/young humans doesn't matter), then they will feel under pressure to give up the Noah Floody fairy tale; and then Joshua's un-noticed The Day the Earth Stood Still; and then the amazing Exodus that was never noticed. Then someone will suggest that the Matthew/Luke birthing narratives really aren't harmonious and someone was making up some silly s#*t. Pretty soon they will just ben another mushy lukewarm libral so called Christian.

No, i follow that. I just observe that when cornered, they always add a 'not taken literally' footnote, and carry on, unhindered.
Kind of a reverse 'god of the gaps.'
Well, probably specific examples would help clarify the issue. But I'd say in most times the switch to 'not taken literally' tend to be for conundrums that aren't whole/several chapters long that would be negated. For example when Satan is to have taken Jesus to a mountain top, and he surveys the 4 corners of the earth and all the kingdoms of the world. That is just 1/2 sentences to posit that it wasn't a literal thing supporting a flat earth fantasy. Of course sometimes they try to dodge it by adding in that the phrase was only meant towards the kingdoms around Israel, even though nothing in the paragraphs supports the re-imagining of the text. Of course it is a silly thing as the Romans certainly knew of India in Jesus' day.
 
In the 19th century a Christian prosed that when god created he put everything where they were, like fossils.
 
In the 19th century a Christian prosed that when god created he put everything where they were, like fossils.

Yeah, I've always found that to be a very strange apologetic. Yeah, God did this or that shit just to mess with us, the ultimate trickster god...might as well worship Loki...aka Yahweh...the god that plays mental games and then kicks back to be entertained by the human melodrama.
 
In the 19th century a Christian prosed that when god created he put everything where they were, like fossils.
... just to mess with us, the ultimate trickster god...might as well worship Loki...aka Yahweh...the god that plays mental games and then kicks back to be entertained by the human melodrama.
In Gosse's mind it wasn't like that at all -- God did special creation that way not because He's a trickster but because it's the most reasonable way to do it. As his son later explained the concept:

Life is a circle, no one stage of which more than any other affords a natural commencing-point. Every living object has an omphalos, or an egg, or a seed, which points irresistibly to the existence of a previous living object of the same kind. Creation, therefore, must mean the sudden bursting into the circle, and its phenomena, produced full grown by the arbitrary will of God, would certainly present the stigmata of a pre-existent existence. Each created tree would display the marks of sloughed bark and fallen leaves, though it had never borne those leaves or that bark. The teeth of each brute would be worn away with exercise which it had never taken. By innumerable examples he shows that this must have been the case with all living forms.​

("Omphalos" is Greek for belly-button; Gosse derived his hypothesis (and the name of his book) from the centuries-old debate about whether paintings of Adam and Eve should include belly-buttons.)

Of course it didn't work. Practically everybody ignored the theological subtleties and reacted with "You're saying God's a liar?!?
 
Creationism is for the intellectually challenged. Much, much easier to just keep believing in magic.
 
Creationism is for the intellectually challenged. Much, much easier to just keep believing in magic.

There is a lot of selection and self-censorship in what typical creationists read (or watch.) I have cousins on both sides of my family who are so deep into conservative Christianity that it gets injected into nearly every conversation. I get clear indications that their reading has to conform to their core beliefs. If they read about evolution, it will be in some religious publication or some book by Regnery Press, and it will supply them with talking points as to why evolution or a 4 billion-year-old earth are untrue. Today it is easier than ever to customize your media. Whales had legs at one point? They lost them millions of years ago? Some whales are still being born with vestigial hind limbs? No, not if it's not in your media feed, they don't.
 
Philip Gosse published his big tome, Omphalos, in 1857, two years before Charles Darwin published Origin of Species.  Omphalos (book)

It was a huge tome, covering a large range of evidence for an old Universe. Evidence like growth rings of trees, growth lines on shells, tooth wear, and coprolites: fossil excrement. A present-day "Omphalos II" would cover a lot more, like radioactive decay, Milankovitch astronomical cycles, plate tectonics, molecular phylogeny, stellar structure and evolution, and the expansion of the Universe.
 
Creationism is for the intellectually challenged. Much, much easier to just keep believing in magic.

There is a lot of selection and self-censorship in what typical creationists read (or watch.) I have cousins on both sides of my family who are so deep into conservative Christianity that it gets injected into nearly every conversation. I get clear indications that their reading has to conform to their core beliefs. If they read about evolution, it will be in some religious publication or some book by Regnery Press, and it will supply them with talking points as to why evolution or a 4 billion-year-old earth are untrue. Today it is easier than ever to customize your media. Whales had legs at one point? They lost them millions of years ago? Some whales are still being born with vestigial hind limbs? No, not if it's not in your media feed, they don't.

Identity myths have been selected for over countless generations. No identity myths are associated with gravity or the speed of sound, chemistry, electromagnetism, black holes, bacteria, fossil fuels or aircraft carriers. So people and their religious overlords have no problem with any of these subjects. But don't tell me my genes are nearly identical to a chimpanzee or that I'm not descended from a magic sky king that has abracadabra powers.

People like their woo, they like to pretend that they're super-duper special, particularly when they don't have the aptitude for scientific thought generally. Pseudo intellectualism and ritualism are natural fits for such folk. It's much easier and more satisfying to invent and recite ghost stories about the group identity than it is to learn science, particularly when I can enjoy all the benefits of living in a scientific society while remaining scientifically uninformed and illiterate. I don't have to know anything about a power grid to flip a switch or even have solar panels installed on the roof of my house.

And I can always rewrite, update and adapt my identity myths no problem.
 
In the 19th century a Christian prosed that when god created he put everything where they were, like fossils.
... just to mess with us, the ultimate trickster god...might as well worship Loki...aka Yahweh...the god that plays mental games and then kicks back to be entertained by the human melodrama.
In Gosse's mind it wasn't like that at all -- God did special creation that way not because He's a trickster but because it's the most reasonable way to do it. As his son later explained the concept:

Life is a circle, no one stage of which more than any other affords a natural commencing-point. Every living object has an omphalos, or an egg, or a seed, which points irresistibly to the existence of a previous living object of the same kind. Creation, therefore, must mean the sudden bursting into the circle, and its phenomena, produced full grown by the arbitrary will of God, would certainly present the stigmata of a pre-existent existence. Each created tree would display the marks of sloughed bark and fallen leaves, though it had never borne those leaves or that bark. The teeth of each brute would be worn away with exercise which it had never taken. By innumerable examples he shows that this must have been the case with all living forms.​

("Omphalos" is Greek for belly-button; Gosse derived his hypothesis (and the name of his book) from the centuries-old debate about whether paintings of Adam and Eve should include belly-buttons.)

Of course it didn't work. Practically everybody ignored the theological subtleties and reacted with "You're saying God's a liar?!?
Wow, I guess that pig is so dolled up it would be ready for the Met Gala...
 
I just want to say that I really appreciate the posts of those taking the time to answer Aesthete.

It might feel like a waste of time because he will drop a topic as soon as you prove it and move to a new one, then come back like you never said anything, BUT you should know that other readers are finding the science very interesting about topics we would never have thought to wonder about. So in that respect, the nonsense of the YEC claims make a great random science topic generator for the rest of us, even though he contributes nothing rational.

Just wanted you to know someone was reading and enjoying the science of it. The audience is much larger than just the YEC-er.
 
As to how the mainstream of the scientific community came to accept the great age of the Universe and the evolution of life, it is a very interesting story.

Theoretical science began in the Greco-Roman world, though it was in a very primitive state by present-day standards.

The Atomists and Epicureans believed that Earthlike worlds come and go, and that different ones have different features.

Aristotle believed that there was only one Earthlike world, ours, but that it is eternal, and always much like the present day. He also believed that it suffers great natural disasters every now and then which destroy much of the evidence of earlier humanity.

The Stoics believed in an Aristotle-like cosmology, with the Universe destroyed by fire and re-created from it every now and then.

But when Christianity was made the official religion of the Roman Empire, that changed. It was taken for granted that the Universe was created around 4000 or 5500 BCE, depending on which version of the Old Testament / Tanakh / Hebrew Bible one uses. The first is for the Masoretic Hebrew version, and the second for the Septuagint Greek version.

As to the origin of the Universe, God did it!!! Though some theologians explained away some aspects of the two Genesis creation stories as allegorical, like their theological anthropomorphism.

Early modern scientists had a big struggle against the more orthodox theologians.

 William Whiston (1667-1752) wrote  A New Theory of the Earth (1698), proposing that Noah's Flood was caused by the Earth passing through the tail of a comet. This seems like something that some present-day creationist might think of, but some people considered it too "rational", and they preferred to believe that God poofed the floodwaters into existence or something like that.

"There was no consensus within the Newtonians as to how far mechanical causes could be held responsible for key events of sacred history: John Keill was at the opposite extreme to Whiston in minimising such causes."

 Thomas Burnet (1635? - 1715) wrote "Sacred Theory of the Earth" where he proposed that the floodwaters of Noah's Flood came from the interior of the Earth.

Burnet tightly held the belief that God created the world and all its processes perfectly from the start. He wrote:

We think him a better Artist that makes a Clock that strikes regularly at every hour from the Springs and Wheels which he puts into the work, than he that hath so made his Clock that he must put his finger to it every hour to make it strike.
 
Fossils were often considered excellent evidence of Noah's Flood, and in the 18th cy., Voltaire tried to debunk them. https://decapoda.nhm.org/pdfs/33537/33537.pdf

Some other theories in early modern times was that fossils were God's doodlings on the rocks, or else that they somehow emerged from the rocks themselves.

A notable advocate of the divine-doodling theory was  Johann Beringer (1670-1738) but many of the fossils that he worked from were fakes created by two of his colleagues to embarrass him:  Beringer's Lying Stones


Another early geologist was  Nicolas Steno (1638-1686) someone who worked out principles of stratigraphy, principles for interpreting the layering of rocks on our planet's surface.

 Giovanni Arduino (geologist) (1714-1795) did the first identification of geological strata, naming them Primary, Secondary, Tertiary, and Quaternary (1, 2, 3, 4).

 William Smith (geologist) (1769-1839) prepared some of the first geological maps ever, traveling around Great Britain and recording what kinds of rock he founds. He became known as "Strata Smith" for recognizing that the rocks came in neat layers or strata.

Later geologists built on his work, mapping other places, and dividing up geological time by characteristic strata and fossils.


 Georges-Louis Leclerc, Comte de Buffon (1707-1788) proposed that the Earth was some 75,000 years old, though he was made to recant anything that seemed contrary to the Book of Genesis. He also proposed "centers of creation", different spots where the ancestors of organisms were poofed into existence. Thus, deer were poofed into existence in Eurasia and North America, and kangaroos in Australia.

 Georges Cuvier (1769-1832) did a breakthrough that many of us may consider very surprising. He convincingly demonstrated that some species had gone extinct. He looked at mammoth bones, and while mammoths are obviously some species of elephants, they were different enough from present-day species to be their own species. But he noted that nobody has ever found a living mammoth, despite the animals being as big as present-day elephants. So mammoths have gone extinct.

That was a conceptual breakthrough, since there was a widespread belief back then God would not allow any of his creations to go extinct.

He also proposed that extinctions were caused by geological catastrophes, and that was a popular theory in early 19th cy. geology. It was discredited as a superfluous hypothesis by the mid 19th cy., with uniformitarianism triumphing. It was notably advocated by  Charles Lyell (1797-1875), and for a long time, geologists were very reluctant to accept the existence of anything much more catastrophic than anything well-documented. That changed over the last century, as geologists' techniques improved. Nowadays, we recognize both uniform and catastrophic causes, and treat them as hypotheses to be tested.

Early 19th cy. geologists often believed in multiple special creations over geological time: poof-poof-poof-poof-poof. Much like what old-earth creationist Hugh Ross believes.


In the 18th and early 19th cys., geologists argued over these hypotheses:
  •  Neptunism - rocks formed from sedimentary deposits and crystallization in the Earth's oceans.
  •  Plutonism - rocks formed from glowing hot material from the Earth's interior.
They were both partially correct -- sedimentary rocks are what the neptunists were right about, and igneous rocks are what the plutonists were right about.

Some neptunists claimed that basalt layers in rocks were sedimentary, condensed out of water, but that was stretching it. Rock basalt closely resembled volcanic basalt: both are crystalline and neither has fossils in it. Also, basalt is sometimes intrusive in other rocks. So it is evident that rock-layer basalt is as igneous as volcanic basalt.
 
That was a conceptual breakthrough, since there was a widespread belief back then God would not allow any of his creations to go extinct.
I worked with a YEC /Magic Flood devotee for many years. I never got to ask him what happened to the dinosaurs and other animals that are extinct, as he seriously believed that dinosaurs were on the magic boat ala Hambone. He attended a bible school after high school and I asked him once how they teach geology at his bible school. He answered rather defensively, "They only teach the facts." I thought that was cute but I never got to pursue the discussion.

I never pressed things with him because I was always concerned he might file some kind of complaint against me for anti-religious behavior.
 
In the 19th century a Christian prosed that when god created he put everything where they were, like fossils.
... just to mess with us, the ultimate trickster god...might as well worship Loki...aka Yahweh...the god that plays mental games and then kicks back to be entertained by the human melodrama.
In Gosse's mind it wasn't like that at all -- God did special creation that way not because He's a trickster but because it's the most reasonable way to do it. As his son later explained the concept:

Life is a circle, no one stage of which more than any other affords a natural commencing-point. Every living object has an omphalos, or an egg, or a seed, which points irresistibly to the existence of a previous living object of the same kind. Creation, therefore, must mean the sudden bursting into the circle, and its phenomena, produced full grown by the arbitrary will of God, would certainly present the stigmata of a pre-existent existence. Each created tree would display the marks of sloughed bark and fallen leaves, though it had never borne those leaves or that bark. The teeth of each brute would be worn away with exercise which it had never taken. By innumerable examples he shows that this must have been the case with all living forms.​

("Omphalos" is Greek for belly-button; Gosse derived his hypothesis (and the name of his book) from the centuries-old debate about whether paintings of Adam and Eve should include belly-buttons.)

Of course it didn't work. Practically everybody ignored the theological subtleties and reacted with "You're saying God's a liar?!?

I think God really is tricksy, and loves a good joke. If God is the best at everything then S/He absolutely HAS to be the funniest being in the universe.

Imagine the great Lee J. Cobb as God, Exorcist era, same manner of speaking. God is talking to one of His angels:

Lee J Cobb.jpg

"Schlemkel, C'mere. You want 45 pieces silver? I thought you would. Look, it's easy. See this? Looks like those brass knuckles I'm planning to bring out a little later, or am I wrong? I showed you before, right? Of course I'm not wrong. Listen, all I want you to do is put this on your hand and go around marking some few hundred the soft stones. No. No, Schlemkel, you only get the one. I got plenty angels at work already with other designs, I only give each of 'em the one. Don't get greedy. So you fly around and just make a mark like this everywhere which ever, you know, you choose. See how it works? The stone is still soft. Careful, it's hot. Like this, see? Go ahead, you try. Alright. I said careful! Something wrong with your eyes you don't see the bubbles? This is hazardous work down here, Schlemkel, Principalities only, like you. I tried with the Thrones and then the Dominations, nothing could go wrong, eh? Like hell nothing! All of them burned, the schlemiels. So it's only Principalities now...like I said, careful..."
 
Some answers I got on dinosaurs.

Yes, humans and dinosaurs coexisted.
Noah took dinosaur eggs on the Ark.

M0dern science and genetics has only been around for maybe 100 years. There was a documentary in the 90s about evolution nd schools in Kansas. One thing was schools were using seriously outdated biology texts in primary educar=tion.

There is a line in the movie Inherit the wind about the Scopes trial about the jurors. "The only book they probably ever read was the bible". You see it reflected in the old western movies and TV shows, people quote the bible and rarely reference anything else.


The idea if basing society in rational science is new. We see politicians some from major universities proclaim faith in god and bible.

I worked with a young engineer who went to University Of Washington who said Christian student's told him he should give up engineering because science was bad.
 
Some answers I got on dinosaurs.

Yes, humans and dinosaurs coexisted.
Noah took dinosaur eggs on the Ark.
Um....The direction was to take animals by pairs. "The male and his mate." Eggs don't typically mate. How did he know if two eggs were going to be a mating pair after they hatched and grew up? Were dinosaur eggs coded, blue and pink?
This 'solution' just begs more questions.
And were dinosaurs 'clean' animals for sacrifice? Because they'd need 14 pairs of clean eggs sorted by gender, for each kind of dinosaur, to fulfill the direction.
 
How did he know if two eggs were going to be a mating pair after they hatched and grew up? Were dinosaur eggs coded, blue and pink?
Yes, exactly -- much more practical than trying to keep full-grown T. rexes alive on an Ark you're hoping to have some other survivors on. Only problem: turns out Noah was color-blind. When he realized he couldn't actually carry out God's instruction, his course was clear: "Everybody just shut up and eat your Allosaurus omelettes."
 
What I want to know is who had the job of shoveling manure. It must have stank to 'high heaven' as the saying goes.
 
Back
Top Bottom