RE: Adam never met Eve

From: glenn morton (
Date: Tue Nov 07 2000 - 02:08:21 EST

  • Next message: Kerry Schutt: "Biology/Human Nature Seminar"

    > -----Original Message-----
    > From: Howard J. Van Till []
    > Sent: Tuesday, November 07, 2000 1:15 AM

    I wrote of the flood:

    > > My concern in this whole area began with the flood.
    > Geologically, there is
    > > absolutely no reason that if there had been a flood, Mesopotamian,
    > > worldwide, or otherwise, that there would not be evidence left
    > of its impact
    > > on the earth.
    > Agreed. We're off to a good start.
    > > This then became a point of verification for the validity of
    > > the early scripture.
    > No, I think it would be a point only for the verification of one
    > particular
    > reading of Genesis 6-9 (through the filter of modern Western culture).

    I disagree. Regardless of what kind of flood it was, be it Mesopotamian,
    Caspian, etc, there would still be geological evidence left. Let's say that
    the Mesopotamian flood was true and that it consisted of some
    extraordinarily large flood. The sediments for such an event should be
    apparent throughout Iraq. But there are no widespread Quaternary layers. I
    have seen some people try to say that they have been eroded away in the past
    few thousand years. But that is as unlikely as meeting a little green man
    on the corner. The Lake Missoula floods of Washington State 20,000 years ago
    or so have left plenty of geologic data for us to verify the event. And
    there is another one from a similar time in the Altai Mountains of Russia:

    "Pleistocene glacial outburst floods were released from ice-dammed lakes of
    the Altay Mountains, south-central Siberia. The Kuray-Chuja lake system
    yielded peak floods in excess of 1 x 10^6 m3 s-1 and as great as 18 x 10^6
    m3 s-1. The phenomenallly high bed shear stresses and stream powers
    generated in these flows produced a main-channel, coarse-grained facies of
    coarse gravel in (1) foreset-bedded bars as much as 200 m high and several
    kilometers long, and (2) degradational, boulder-capped river terraces.
    Giant current ripples, 50 to 150 m in spacing, composed of pebble and cobble
    gravel, are locally abundant. The whole sedimentary assemblage is very
    similar to that of the Channeled Scabland, produced by the Pleistocene
    Missoula Floods of western North America." ~ A. N. Rudoy and V. R. Baker,
    "Sedimentary Effects of Cataclysmic Later Pleistocene Glacial Outburst
    Flooding, Altay Mountains, Siberia," Sedimentary Geology, 85(1993:53-62, p.

    All these events left evidence of themselves, but the Mesopotamian flood
    left no evidence yet we want to say it is true. Why? So that we can have a
    kernal of truth in the flood story. But the lack of such evidence leaves us
    with nothing.

    So is the proper response then to say that the story is true anyway? or is
    the proper response to look elsewhere for a site? Or is the proper response
    to simply conclude that the story is false? The first option seems
    illogical to me and that is what I think many people are doing. The story is
    true regardless of how falsifying the data is.

    And of course, after taking this illogical leap, we then turn around and
    tell the YEC and anti-evolutionist that he must pay attention to the data
    that falsifies his position. To me that is a big piece of--well I won't use
    the word because I did once and got severely pounded for it. And it isnt a
    four-letter word.

    > > I have said that
    > > pre-flood accounts must be historical or the Scripture must be
    > wrong. This
    > > is true regardless of whether or not the account can be verified. Why?
    > > Because there is only one standard of truth.
    > That either/or concept and the assumption that there is only one type of
    > truth is, I believe, a vivid illustration of the modern post-Enlightenment
    > perspective that I was talking about.

    The problem with using other kinds of measures of truth mean that we must
    allow for beliefs in all sorts of things. If someone tells you that
    leprechauns exist we must allow it because they can clearly claim that you
    can't apply this scientific either/or concept because there are other types
    of truth. Those involved in the New Age movement use exactly the same
    logic--they have a different type of truth also. To me, the danger of not
    using the either/or concept is that we must then agree that any sort of
    nonsense is within the realm of possibility. What is to stop us from being
    forced into accepting all sorts of nonsense?

    > > I simply can't go with this
    > > view that there are various types of truths for events that sound like
    > > historical events.
    > To say that the narratives of early Genesis "sound like historical events"
    > is already an interpretation that is characteristic, not of the
    > Ancient Near
    > Eastern culture in which these narratives were crafted, but of the modern
    > Western culture in which we are now immersed.

    One of the things that anthropology is finding is that many of the
    traditions of native peoples is real and factual. This distinction between
    them (ignorant peoples who don't care about true history) and us (who
    supposedly are sophisticated enough to care about true history) is merely a
    21st century arrogance. Consider:

    “We know that some of the folk memories of modern Australian aborigines are
    at least 8,000 years old: they tell of once familiar landmarks that were
    submerged after the last ice age and have now been rediscovered by modern
    divers, just as the native Australians described them. Their memories of
    mythical beasts-bunyips and the rest may well allude to diprotodonts and
    their ilk.” Colin Tudge, The Day Before Yesterday, (London: Pimlico, 1995),
    p. 258

    > > If we can claim that historically false events are really
    > > true, then fairness says that we have to allow for the Muslims, Mormons,
    > > Hindus and everyone else to claim that their false accounts are
    > true. And
    > > this would apply no matter how bizarre the account
    > is--including the mating
    > > of salamanders for the creation of the earth.
    > No one is saying that "historically false events are really
    > true." However,
    > you know well that illustrative narratives (that may not be in one-to-one
    > correspondence with actual events) can be powerful conveyers of truthful
    > insights about God, the human condition, etc.

    Alright, here is the crux our difference. If we take this approach, then we
    must allow that the Hindu totally different theology, expressed via their
    stories, be as good a set of conveyers of truthful insights about God as is
    the Bible. The standard for who's religion is really true is lost by this
    approach. How do you avoid the obvious consistency which requires that even
    the Book of Mormon tells us valuable insights into God's nature, the human
    condition etc?

    BTW, you never did answer the question concerning if you think Christianity
    is the only way to God. (I don't want you to think I didn't notice).

    > > While one can say that I am a scientist (one addicted to
    > scientism), I see
    > > nothing wrong with that.
    > A scientist is not necessarily "addicted to scientism." Scientism is the
    > claim that only that which can be empirically verified is worthy of being
    > called a 'truth.'

    No, I would disagree with that. As a christian, I believe many things that
    can't be scientifically verified. THe resurrection is the most important
    thing that can't be verified that I believe. But what I do insist upon is
    that things which ought to be capable of verification be subjected to it.
    Things like the exodus (for which currently there is no evidence).

    > > The alternative is to allow oneself to believe that
    > > which is false or contrary to evidence.
    > Sorry, that's a serious non sequitur. The alternative to scientism is to
    > accept that there are many important kinds of truths that cannot be forced
    > into the Procrustean bed of "empirically verifiable propositions."

    I love the word 'Procrustean' as it is always applied to ones philosophical
    adversaries. It is a wonderful word of immense use as who wants to be
    procrustean. Indeed the sound of it almost makes one think of procrustacean,
    which is probably the utmost in reactionaries.

    Of the 'truths' of which you speak, do they include things like crystal
    power, pyramid power etc? They can't be forced into such a procrustean mode
    either. How can you show me that pyramid power is false while showing the
    truth of an empirically unverifiable story from the Bible is true? Take
    Balaam's donkey as an example. In what sense can it be true and crystal
    power be false? I would love to see how this works. I don't think you can
    make the proof work without the assumption that the Bible is God's word and
    therefore true, which, of course, then begs the question.

    > Propositions of the specific sort that are amenable to empirical testing
    > should be tested that way. I agree with you that empirically testable
    > propositions that fail the test should be rejected.

    Then why do we not reject the Mesopotamian flood which fails every test for
    correspondence between the observational data and the account? We have lots
    of people who say that even if the details don't match, it must be true.
    That is a non-sequitur also.

    > [skip a bit]
    > > Frankly, I am very tired of seeing that Christians can't deal with data
    > > without mangling it. What sort of people are we? Are we so immune to
    > > observational data that we must either deny it or deny that the
    > Bible says
    > > anything real about the world?
    > Glenn, I think I would have a right to say with equal conviction,
    > "Frankly,
    > I am tired of seeing that Christians can't deal with Ancient Near Eastern
    > religious literature without mangling it."

    And one could respond as you did above--that mangles one *particular
    reading* of Ancient Near Eastern religious literature. This is exactly the
    response you gave to the flood issue above. Why does it apply above but not
    to your own position.
    > > This [my paraphrase of Huston Smith's lecture thesis] sounds
    > very much like
    > > Carlos Castenada's _A Separate Reality_--a
    > > reality in which we feel rather than think. And if that is what
    > religion is
    > > all about, you can have it.
    > Glenn, you know that neither I nor Huston Smith is saying that religion is
    > ALL about feeling. So, why construct so many of your responses in
    > this "all
    > or nothing" format? It makes civil and fruitful conversation very
    > difficult.

    I am not trying to be difficult, nor am I uncivil. I am only seeing the
    implications of what you are suggesting and trying to point out the
    conflicts between what you suggest the the traditional beliefs of
    Christianity. If Christianity is such a fuzzy thing that one can't get
    anything objective out of it, why on earth is it any better than crystal

    > Religion is, in part, about feeling. We know, of course, that
    > there is much
    > more to it than feeling, but I see no need to deny that it is one
    > component.

    Agreed. there is much of feeling to religion. But, if that is all, then we
    might as well feel the spirits on the ether for all the good it will do us.

    > Yes, this recognition moves us outside of the restricted category of
    > "empirically verifiable," but I think that's a step in the right
    > direction.

    Don't miss the fact that I have clearly stated that there is much that I
    believe that can't be verified in Christianity. Feelings can't be verified.
    I have experienced feelings in worship services and in devotions. However,
    shamons in New Guinea feel their religion every bit as intensely as any
    Christian glossalia participant. But feelings don't tell us which of the
    two religions is true----only objective data can do that.

    With respect.


    for lots of creation/evolution information


    This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Tue Nov 07 2000 - 02:07:50 EST