16. But doesn't evolution contradict a literal reading of the first chapter of Genesis? Yes, but Ruse points out that there are only two groups of people who insist on reading Genesis in a close-mindedly literal way. The first group is ignorant fundamentalists. And the second group is ignorant atheists like Dawkins. -DD



We have to remember that Genesis was a literal Judean interpretation on how the world was created. No where in the two creation accounts does it suggest otherwise and it wasn't until science discovery of the earth's age and evolution that the creation story was first challenged. Then with the discovery of the Enuma Elish the story was debunked from its literal understanding. The two stories are identical in its methodology except that the Judean translators removed the generations of "begat of gods" and replaced them with days. They did so in order to keep with monotheistic ideology. So even though most people now don't believe Genesis to be a literal meaning of creation Dawkins attacks it because for thousands of years it was thought to be so, and if it wasn't for the sciences it would continue to be considered literal.

goddess1prevail at 11:08AM on Jun 12th 2008

17. The idea that the creation account is figurative is highly problematic. Nothing in the Hebrew of Genesis indicates that Moses - or whomever a person thinks wrote it - meant to distinguish it from the rest of Genesis, or the rest of the Pentateuch, for that matter. In fact, there are many things in the first 11 chapters that indicate that the whole of Genesis is a unified and literal account. If we are to insist that Genesis 1 is allegorical, then we must also maintain that Genesis 50 is as well. Perhaps some are willing to do that, but if a person wants to remain faithful to scripture, then he or she cannot go that far.

And one need not be an "ignorant fundamentalist" to subscribe to such an idea. We should allow the Bible to explain and interpret itself, and not be so eager to interpret the Bible in light of science.

Shawn Brace at 11:20AM on Jun 12th 2008

18. Dinesh,

I appreciate the work you've done in your recent book and all the debates you've had with atheists. They've been helpful and uplifting tools and resources for me as a Christian. That being said, this is an area where I think you do your fellow Christians a disservice. Continually referring to anyone who believes in a young earth, 6 day creation account as 'fundamentalist' (that word being overloaded with the obviously negative connotation our modern day media has given it) is surprising and disappointing. You make it seem as if people who believe this are all biblical literalists, the kind who actually thing they should pluck their eye out or chop their hand off if it causes them to sin. This is simply not true.

I personally don't know and haven't decided where I stand in the young earth/old earth/macro evolution topic - I need to become much better informed before I do. There are organizations and believers out there who are 'fundamentalists' by your definition in this regard but who are also very rational, sentient, intelligent, well educated and well qualified. I'll give just one:

The layman's resource:
http://www.answersingenesis.org/

A more technical resource from the same organization:
http://www.answersingenesis.org/arj

Bryan at 11:23AM on Jun 12th 2008

19. I try to remember not to use the word Darwinism because I find that creationists are more likely to attack it as the rantings of a heretical mad man than if you use the word evolution, which evokes a vast army of learned men and women and a whole school of thought going back to the publishing of On the Origin of Species, but I will make an exception here.

Has Dawkins actually come out and flatly stated that Christians who believe in Darwinism can no longer remain Christians or does he, as I suspect, merely point to their continued belief as an example of how deeply rooted the “God Delusion” can be?

Being more familiar with Dinesh’s faulty logic as opposed to Dawkins’ work, I have to believe that this is just some ridiculous notion that Dinesh has inferred from Dawkins’ battles against fundamentalism because like most right wingers he just doesn’t do nuance.

Why would Dawkins not believe it when Christians tell him that they still believe in God in spite of their embrace of Darwinism when this supports his characterization of religious belief as delusional in nature? I can’t imagine that Dawkins is unaware of the fact that people who are deeply imbedded in a delusion often alter their reality or make excuses to account for apparent or outright contradictory data. I mean for God’s sake (pun intended) Dawkins wrote a book called THE GOD DELUSION, which admittedly I have yet to have read, but do you expect me to believe that a scholar entitling his book, thus does not have an understanding of this aspect of delusions?

From Wikipedia:

Ruse was a witness for the plaintiff in the 1981 test case (McLean v. Arkansas) of the state law permitting the teaching of "creation science" in the Arkansas school system (signed by governor Frank White). The federal judge ruled that the state law was unconstitutional. Ruse takes the position that it is possible to reconcile the Christian religion with Evolutionary Theory, unlike, for example, Richard Dawkins or Phillip E. Johnson.

You have to question what type of atheist seeks to reconcile creationism with evolution to the point where he champions its teaching in schools, knowing full well that a lot of these teachers, with the exception of the science teachers believe in creationism as spelled out in the bible. Even if a science teacher does not believe in creationism, allowing it to be taught in the schools does not necessarily mean that the science teacher will get to decide how it is introduced in his science class, they might be forced into teaching Abrahamic Creationism.

I have questions for Dinesh.
Is the Darwinian obligated to be an atheist?"
The answer is no but I add this advice: Try to be understanding of those who are.
Finally I get the big one. "Can Dinesh be a total douche bag ?
To which I offer the resounding answer: "Absolutely!
PS.
Does anyone else get the impression that this post and the one before were a little tepid? And, Do you get the idea that this may be due to some serious flack Dinesh may have received because of his Michelle Obama's Inferiority Complex posting? You have to admit that it was more incendiary than most of his posts.

rabidmccain at 11:24AM on Jun 12th 2008

20. I would still like to know who was taking notes during this 'creation' so that the bible can be so detailed. Maybe the blackberry was 'created' first and god inputted the infomation.

Geoff Barker at 11:26AM on Jun 12th 2008

21. I believe what the Bible says, but I also believe there is much, much more than what is contained in the Bible, and much of the Scriptures remain a mystery without extra-biblical texts to enlighten readers.

While canonizing Scriptures had its usefulness, many generations since, it has also banished ancient knowledge and understanding by default.

I believe the creation account in Genesis chapter one, is a *renewal* of the earth and the days spoken of describe lengthy time periods called "ages", told over the course of six 24 hour days.

I don't believe Genesis is the real "Beginning" the uniformed organized religions wish us to believe and which Science criticizes as inaccurate.

Notice Genesis 1:2 states, "Now the earth *became* formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters."

This would be highly suggestive that what we are reading in Genesis chapter 1 is a "renewing" of the earth. Which would indicate the earth was created in a previous state and condition, devastated, and then renewed.

"When you send your Spirit, they are created, and you renew the face of the earth." Psalms104:30

Major religion and Science-diehards want us to believe Genesis and Science are at odds, but they aren't. Our modern understanding of the Genesis text is faulty.

Tink at 11:36AM on Jun 12th 2008

22. DD: "the Bible is sometimes written in a form as to make itself intelligible to people who are not well educated"

Oh, I couldn't agree more. In fact, I believe it is written ONLY for them.

AndrewV at 11:41AM on Jun 12th 2008

23. The ancients didn't posit creation stories as an attempt at modern science. The purpose of the stories was to answer theological questions about God and his relationship to the universe and beings.

Reading Genesis 1&2 as if it's a science discussion is like reading a science textbook as if its an attempt at poetry.

The New Testament writers don't attempt to impose a 21st century scientific mindset when reading the creation account. Rather, they are focused on the existential and moral role humans have in relation to both God and their surroundings.

preteristvision at 11:47AM on Jun 12th 2008

24. Isaiah tells us God did not create the earth a waste place.

Isaiah 45:18.
"For thus says the LORD, who created the heavens (He is the God who formed the earth and made it, He established it and did not create it a waste place, But formed it to be inhabited), "I am the LORD, and there is none else."

Notice Genesis 1:2 states, "Now the earth *became* formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters."

curious bystander at 11:48AM on Jun 12th 2008

25. Reading the Bible "figuratively" means twisting it to say whatever it is you want it to say, which is doable if you are dealing with a book of fiction, but not doable if you are dealing with a book of fact.

emelpe at 11:54AM on Jun 12th 2008

26. Young's Literal Translation recognizes in 1862 that the traditions of men rendered the Scriptures void.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Young's_Literal_Translation

"The Young's Literal Translation is unusual in that, as the name implies, it is a strictly literal translation of the original Hebrew and Greek texts. The Preface to the Second Edition states,

If a translation gives a present tense when the original gives a past, or a past when it has a present; a perfect for a future, or a future for a perfect; an a for a the, or a the for an a; an imperative for a subjunctive, or a subjunctive for an imperative; a verb for a noun, or a noun for a verb, it is clear that verbal inspiration is as much overlooked as if it had no existence. THE WORD OF GOD IS MADE VOID BY THE TRADITIONS OF MEN. [Emphases in original.]

curious bystander at 11:54AM on Jun 12th 2008

27. Many people are unfamiliar with the evidence which points to the Creation Story of Genesis to have originally been written on tablets and used later by Moses.

Through the research of Percy Wiseman, he and his son have comparatively studied ancient Babylonian tablets and their use of "toldoth" phrases.

Toldoths are phrases which define the preceeding text by author or subject matter.

The first toldoth used in Genesis denotes the subject of the Creation story.

Gen.2:4a, "These are the generations [course of histories] of the heavens and of the earth when they were created."

The second toldoth used is in Genesis 5:1, which denotes the author of the previous text, Adam.

Today's modern translations are divided up into chapter and verses which attribute the toldoths incorrectly, leading to false conclusions.

curious bystander at 12:10PM on Jun 12th 2008

28. Can Dinesh be honest?

The answer is no.

Knight_of_BAAWA at 12:12PM on Jun 12th 2008

29. Dinesh,

Personally, I think that the Theory of Evolution is irrelevant to the Christian faith, and I don't mind disregarding the issue amongst Christian believers on either side of the fence. I do wish that Dinesh D'Souza would remain open-minded to the large problems with the Theory of Evolution, (such as how the fossil record does NOT prove incremental changes especially between species, or how the Pre-Cambrian Explosion shows the exact opposite in the fossil record of vastly different species suddenly appearing all at once, etc.).

On the other hand, the Theory of Evolution is very relevant for atheists, because they readily admit that it is their foundational basis for denying the existence of God, and/or the integrity of the Bible.

Dinesh, you have made the point elsewhere that the Theory of Evolution, even if true, should be taught in public schools as if it disproves the integrity of religion and the Bible. I could live easily alongside the Theory of Evolution if this were the case in our public schools. Unfortunately, the atheists have a stranglehold on public education which demands that it teaches the Theory of Evolution exclusively, and that it is the basis of a world view of atheism as the only acceptable viewpoint for modern people in the West.

For me, it is much more important to hold fellow believers to the moral authority of the Bible teachings, and to expose false Christians spewing lies about how one can remain in grossly immoral and condemned activities while claiming to be a Christian, while falsely teaching that immorality is compatible with being a Christian. That is the bigger, more pressing issue of today, in the West.

You have wearied the LORD with your words; yet you say, “In what way have we wearied Him?”
In that you say, “Everyone who does evil is good in the sight of the LORD, and He delights in them,” or, “Where is the God of justice?” -- Malachi 2:17

And for this reason God will send them strong delusion, that they should believe the lie, that they all may be condemned who did not believe the truth but had pleasure in unrighteousness. -- 2 Thessalonians 2:11-12

Rev 3:16 at 12:23PM on Jun 12th 2008

30. Please forgive my major typo in comment #29, which should read that Dinesh says Evolution should NOT be taught with an anti-religious component.

I mistakenly left out the "NOT", which reverses the meaning. I will proofread my comments much closer in the future.

So sorry.

]c:

Rev 3:16 at 12:25PM on Jun 12th 2008