Gene Wilson on Convincing Creationists of Evolution (on quora)

Q If I were a true blooded creationist to the bone, what would you say to me to try and convince me of evolution?
https://www.quora.com/If-I-were-a-true-blooded-creationist-to-the-bone-what-would-you-say-to-me-to-try-and-convince-me-of-evolution/answer/D-Gene-Wilson

D. Gene Wilson

Pulling back from Quora a bit to work on novels.

Updated 4h ago

Meaning no disrespect, I wouldn’t bother trying.

If you’ve had significant training in a religious school that has instilled creationism in you, my attempts to convince you would likely just stress the relationship. If the relationship is important to me, I’ll bail.

If you’re the product of a secular eduction, the biology teachers have already taken a run at you and missed, so why would I think that I can do a better job? Once again, I’ll bail.

There is one circumstance where I’ll discuss evolution with a committed creationist, and the way you’ve phrased you question suggests that it would not apply in your case. But if you came to me and asked me out of apparent curiosity what my biggest argument for evolution is, I’ll tell you.

Note, please, that it has to be borne of real curiosity. And that it has to start with you.

Otherwise, my experience suggests that I’d merely be stressing the relationship with absolutely no possibility of success.

In case you’re curious, this is probably how I’d approach it, mainly because it’s quick and easy and shouldn’t involve a long discussion.

Me: “Would you agree that the question is between biblical creationism and evolution?”

You: “Yes.”

I would then look up firmament in Wikipedia and read the following quote from Genesis 1:6–8:

Then God said, “Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters.” Thus God made the firmament, and divided the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament; and it was so. And God called the firmament Heaven. So the evening and the morning were the second day.[3]

I would then read a quote in the same Wiki article from the Jewish Encyclopedia, explaining how the ancient Israelites viewed the universe:

The Hebrews regarded the earth as a plain or a hill figured like a hemisphere, swimming on water. Over this is arched the solid vault of heaven. To this vault are fastened the lights, the stars. So slight is this elevation that birds may rise to it and fly along its expanse.[8]

I would then google Ancient Israelite Cosmology and point out artistic renditions of what the Jewish Encyclopedia’s talking about. A cosmic egg surrounded by water, with water above the firmament and the celestial bodies mounted to the underside of the firmament pretty much captures it. Then I’d point out how beautifully such a cosmology—heaven right up there, not too far away—fits in with the Tower of Babel and Jacob’s Ladder and such things.

I’d close the argument by repeating the Jewish Encyclopedia quote, repeating the Genesis account, and suggesting that since they largely appear one and same, Genesis 1 and 2 cannot be real science and real history.

Since we’ve agreed that it’s either biblical creationism or evolution, and we’ve now eliminated biblical creationism, that leaves only possibility—evolution, the winner by default.

I would further suggest that tons of Christians, Jews, and Muslims accept Theistic Evolution, so maybe you should too.

Then I’d fold my hands and shut it all down, quite confident that I haven’t budged you an inch.

But I’d hope that I’d fanned a flicker of curiosity, which is absolutely the most I can hope for.

Answered four times

α, β, γ, and δ

α

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Mon

Catholic Church forbade taking firmament as normal solid, but also forbade taking it as nothing like solid at all.

I take it as aether, moving East to West around Earth each day is that firmament, “above” can mean also “in the upper part of” and the water in question would be the H2O and H2 molecules discovered in space by spectrography.

β

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Mon

"Then I’d point out how beautifully such a cosmology—heaven right up there, not too far away—fits in with the Tower of Babel and Jacob’s Ladder and such things."

Jacob's ladder was a vision, not a cosmic diagram.

Tower of Babel may have been a rocket project (and one which would have failed), as per "And they said: Come, let us make a city and a tower, the top whereof may reach to heaven:"

Not all of the tower, just the top, fits a three step rocket very neatly.

D. Gene Wilson

4h ago

Yes, it was a vision, a dream, call it what you will, most likely informed by his understanding of his world and how it worked.

Regarding the rocket, I’m having a difficult time deciding whether you’re being serious or spoofing me. Please clarify.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Just now

"Yes, it was a vision, a dream, call it what you will, most likely informed by his understanding of his world and how it worked."

To a Christian, most likely informed by God who is omniscient.

"Regarding the rocket, I’m having a difficult time deciding whether you’re being serious or spoofing me. Please clarify."

O ... K ...

• reread verse Genesis 11:4.
  
  
• Does it say, like Russian Synodal translation "a tower so high it reaches to heaven"?
  
  
• Or does it rather say "a tower, the top of which shall reach to heaven"?
  
  
• A youtuber was asking "if God was angry for a skyscraper, how come He is allowing us to launch space craft?"
  
  
• I stumbled on Göbekli Tepe when taking the carbon rise from Flood to 500 BC in a straight graph, since that approach led to the times of Abraham being most likely to carbon date as carbon dates of Göbekli Tepe. Now, I do not believe GT is Ur Kasdim. I am 50/50 on whether Urfa or Woolley's Ur is Ur Kasdim. But I am fairly sure Göbekli Tepe is Babel since I heard Graham Hancock state the site looks like a rocket launch. I came to think of the Genesis text, checked, and no, it did not state the tower had to be so high as to reach into heaven.
  
  
• I believe there have been technology losses and technology recovery. Oppenheim rediscovered atomic bombs which, according to suggestions in Mahabharata could well have been known in pre-Flood times. So, Nimrod could very well have planned fuelling a rocket on Uranium. Which would not have had as bright results as fuelling them on H2+O2, see Cape Canaveral and Baikonoor.
  
  
• God saved us from atomic disaster by confusing the languages so Nimrod couldn't get the work done.

γ

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Mon

"I’d close the argument by repeating the Jewish Encyclopedia quote, repeating the Genesis account, and suggesting that since they largely appear one and same, Genesis 1 and 2 cannot be real science and real history."

What dumb Jewish Encyclopedia article is that? It is real history. Genesis 1 gives a panorama and Genesis 2 a closeup on day 6, when Adam and Eve were created.

Link is appreciated, and the BuNnyBeaR violation is not against you, but against Jewish Encyclopedia.

D. Gene Wilson

4h ago

Interesting.

Are you saying that you have filed a BNBR against what has long been considered one of the most important compendiums of Jewish knowledge in the English-speaking world?

The Wiki article directs to the Jewish Encyclopedia article.

Answered three times

a, b, and c.

a

Hans-Georg Lundahl

27m ago

No, I am saying the Jewish Encyclopedia would be better off than you filing me for a BNBR.

You mean footnote 8 linking to …

COSMOGONY - JewishEncyclopedia.com
http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/articles/4684-cosmogony#2736

… by Kaufmann Kohler, Emil G. Hirsch?

b

Hans-Georg Lundahl

15m ago

I have been skimming the Kaufmann Kohler and Emil Hirsch article and I did not find:

I’d close the argument by repeating the Jewish Encyclopedia quote, repeating the Genesis account, and suggesting that since they largely appear one and same, Genesis 1 and 2 cannot be real science and real history.

I did however find this nonsense:

“The Hebrews carried an originally Babylonian tradition with them when emigrating from Ur-Kasdim.”

First of all, we do not know whether Ur-Kasdim was Urfa in Anatolia or Ur in Sumer, as dug up by Woolley.

Second, since Abraham left Ur about 500 years after failure of Babel, he could have preserved the original Hebrew tradition (the language spoken before and up to Genesis 11:1) without tainting it by Babylonian errors.

Third, Genesis 1 is not necessarily part of Abraham’s legacy to Moses, it could be Moses had a vision of it on Mount Sinai. (Otherwise, Genesis 1 could be what God had told Adam and what Moses received could be a confirmation with more detail, perhaps as given by Jubilees).

So, Kaufmann Kohler, Emil G. Hirsch they can file a BNBR complaint against me …

c

Hans-Georg Lundahl

12m ago

“what has long been considered one of the most important compendiums of Jewish knowledge in the English-speaking world”

Hmmm … 1901, it seems Kohler and Hirsch can’t file a BNBR complaint against me, after all … it sounds very Bibel-Babel, very Delitsch and therefore very Prussian.

It even seems Delitzsch may have taken this approach from Jewish Encyclopedia. His lecture was in 1902.

δ

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Mon

"Then I’d say that historically speaking, Christians haven’t usually taken the creation story literally, and suggest that you consider going back to how Christians have traditionally understood it, non-literally."

As history is concerned, this is simply a false claim. It can be tested if you go to St Thomas Aquinas Prima Pars, QQ 65-74.

And if you go to the actual full length texts of the Church Fathers you have no doubt seen in quote mined versions.

D. Gene Wilson

5h ago

You are possibly correct. I am going with what I learned in school, but I have always been curious about whether it was correct.

Since whether Christians in large numbers have or have not viewed the Bible literally has little bearing on my current belief system, I have just gone with what I learned. My own personal research has gone into different areas.

I have removed that part of my answer because I accept your criticism as being possibly, and perhaps even likely valid. Since it currently matters little to me whether Christians have historically accepted Adam and Eve as metaphorical or literal, I will probably never get very deep into such research on my own.

Of greater interest to me is whether Jesus and whoever was writing as Paul viewed Adam and Eve as historical, rather than metaphorical or mythological characters.

During my Christian years I never felt up to looking too deeply into that kettle of fish. If I concluded that Jesus accepted Adam and Eve as historical characters rather than using the story in a more literary sense, I would likely be forced to choose between 1.) Jesus had limited knowledge in this area, in the same sense that he didn’t know the date of his return, only the Father; or, 2.) Jesus believed erroneous concepts, which would strike at the heart of his divinity.

I began to slowly leave the faith for other reasons before I got deeply into this particular question, so the impetus to look deeper was never there.

The best to you.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Just now

There was a third option : there really were two people called Adam and Eve.

Best wishes.