... on Knowledge of Hagiographers · ... on Nature of Catholic Authority · On Francisco J. Ayala
***** 15. Evolution vs. Creationism: Biblical Literalism *****
Qualitative Research Channel
Only part of the section with Francisco J. Ayala:
- Chapter 2 of Genesis does not show God creating dry land or sun, moon and stars after Adam was created.
It also does not show any days passing between Adam's and Eve's creation, it is compatible with both being created on day 6, as per the resumé in chapter 1.
The "difficulty" for literalism is  And the Lord God having formed out of the ground all the beasts of the earth, and all the fowls of the air, brought them to Adam to see what he would call them: for whatsoever Adam called any living creature the same is its name.  And Adam called all the beasts by their names, and all the fowls of the air, and all the cattle of the field: but for Adam there was not found a helper like himself.
Here the solution proposed by translater is that we are talking about animals formed before Adam. Kent Hovind has another solution, God made extra examples of all kinds so Adam could watch Him create and verify He was the creator.
- Who is this guy? He considers that in Genesis 2 not just animals but plants (in general, as opposed to just one garden of them with trees poofing up for Adam's edification in it) and even stars - not even mentioned in chapter 2! were created after Adam. That would indeed involve a contradiction with chapter 1, which fortunately is not there.
Checking by scrolling back the video: Francisco Ayala, Ph.D., Donald Bre Professor of Biological Sciences, Dept. of Ecology & Evolutionary Biology, U.C. Irvine, 2001 National Medal of Science Laureate
Oh, at least no US university gave him any credits for his skills in Biblical exegesis ... good ...
- "[hundreds and hundreds of] inconsistencies and incompatibilities"
Probably Francisco Ayala checked an Atheist's Annotated Bible or sth.
Each of the "inconsistencies" self destructs when checked against the actual words of the Bible.
Two things scientists are often very poor on: Bible and Medieval History.
- 3:57 - 3:59
- "[the writers of the Bible could not speak of atoms or natural selection] or even of the earth going around the Sun, because there not what people thought was the case at the time in"
Francisco Ayala, I do not quite get what you are trying to convey.
Back when I was a Lutheran (fortunately no more!) I was against women "priests". Some guys argued that Jesus could only name male apostles, because the priesthood back then was reserved for men ... well, in Israel it was, since Aaron and before (if you read Genesis), but that was a thing God had arranged more than 1000 years before. In the Pagan world, there were lots of cults with female priestesses. Isis, Aphrodite, and a few more, there were female priestesses back then. A N D Jesus still chose male only Apostles.
What they were thinking was, back then people had not progressed beyond a certain misogyny, and so Jesus adapted to it, and now we have progressed beyond it, Christianity no longer needs to adapt to a misogyny no longer reflecting our culture.
Of course this is blasphemous, it implies God when living among us like Man was inadequate (at least without the help of very recent interpreters pushing "empathy" for what Christ must really have meant very far) to "bear witness for truth".
You seem to have a very similar and very evil idea that scientific progress is a one way story and that while God was believing atoms, natural selection and heliocentrism, He not just ignored atoms, but contradicted Natural Selection and Heliocentrism just to adapt to the people He was molding like pottery clay through the 40 years of Desert Journey. Ah, He can make them circumcise, He can make them abhor porc meat, which Egyptians did not abhor, He can ... and yet if He had also given them Heliocentrism, it would have been too much for them.
While there were no instruments with which to "measure parallax" back then, the knowledge of Heliocentrism could have been a supernatural one, one acquired by trust in God, as knowledge of Hittites has so long been for Christians, up to about a century ago.
So much for the idea God could not have revealed it.
As to the writers, they were not autonomous intellectuals to whom God revealed nothing, but some of them were prophets.
Now, atoms may or may not be true (the globes you find in electronic microscopy and where you have a big and two smaller ones for water molecules are not correctly named atoms, only conventually so : if they were really a-tomoi, indivisible, there would be no isotopes and no radioactivity : whether carbon 14 decays to carbon 12 or to nitrogen 14 which is its origin - I have heard both - both its origin and its decay contradict there being no parts in carbon 14 which can go away or be added).
Atoms are at least not contradicted by the Bible.
But for Natural Selection, you even have a contrary statement in the Bible, twice at least:
Matth 10: Are not two sparrows sold for a farthing? and not one of them shall fall on the ground without your Father.
Same thing said in Luke, but here is an older mention:
Ps 103: The young lions roaring after their prey, and seeking their meat from God.
In other words, decision of what animals survive is not "natural selection", but an apparent "chance selection" which is really a "providence of God" selection.
Similarily, Heliocentrism is also contradicted twice, or more:
Ps 103: Who hast founded the earth upon its own bases: it shall not be moved for ever and ever.
And even earlier than that:
Joshua 10: Then Josue spoke to the Lord, in the day that he delivered the Amorrhite in the sight of the children of Israel, and he said before them: Move not, O sun, toward Gabaon, nor thou, O moon, toward the valley of Ajalon.  And the sun and the moon stood still, till the people revenged themselves of their enemies. Is not this written in the book of the just? So the sun stood still in the midst of heaven, and hasted not to go down the space of one day.
As said, this was after God had been giving Israel extra lessons for free in the Desert, and you pretend God could not have revealed Heliocentrism to them, so Joshua could have told Earth not to turn for a while? Are we supposed to conclude that God did not know He was going to make the miracle? Or that He didn't care about which words he used, what created entity he adressed after praying?
No, it is rather the idea of Francisco Ayala which is blashemous. Not Biblical literalism!
- I just
- found out a few things about Francisco J. Ayala:
"Francisco José Ayala Pereda (born March 12, 1934) is a Spanish-American evolutionary biologist and philosopher at the University of California, Irvine. He is a former Dominican priest, ordained in 1960, but left the priesthood that same year. After graduating from the University of Salamanca, he moved to the United States in 1961 to study for a PhD at Columbia University. There, he studied for his doctorate under Theodosius Dobzhansky, graduating in 1964. He became a US citizen in 1971."
First identity of this post, keeping it:postID=7883265666845594547 - perhaps fits Francisco J. Ayala?