So, Are Atheists Actually Smarter Than Believers??
- Thread starter c0de
- Start date
moralorel
Well-Known Member
- Messages
- 735
- Reaction score
- 634
- Points
- 88
My kid's biology text book. She graduated a couple years ago. So I'm sorry that I don't have a specific book to show you. But I read the same things in my text books in high school and in college. Many of Darwin's findings were deemed false by his own peers before I was born.The name and publication date of said textbook?
No, Charles Darwin's theory of evolution is not false, but it has been refined over time. Darwin's theory of natural selection is considered to be mostly correct, but some of his ideas have been modified or disproven.
Most scientists agree that humans evolved over time. The theory of evolution was initially met with resistance because it challenged the idea of creationism, but it has since been widely accepted.
What Darwin Got Right (and Wrong) About Evolution | Britannica
Darwin got most of the high-level stuff right, but he messed up on a few important details.www.britannica.com
Updated textbooks...are...err...updated.
We have Bible versions...not updates with new info and removals of false info. Don't get me wrong, I love the book, and what can be discerned from introspection with the allegory, parables, and mythology contained within those historical versions. It is the plethora of versions that help me see what differing interpreters interpret the text to mean and assist in an interpretation that can assist me in interesting current situations I find myself in.
Yes, text books are updated. But it sure takes too long. I believe it was 1960 when the peppered moth experiment was proven to be false. Yet it stuck in texts for far too long. I'm not saying that the theory of evolution is incorrect just because some of Darwin's data was false and some of his predictions were false. But I AM saying that far too many people hold onto a "science" or scientific finding that is very old.
It's a human nature issue. Not a religious issue. Now excuse me as I take some vitamin C for my cold, eat some carrots so I can see better, and do some blood letting.
@moralorel -
A quick web search seems to indicate that there is no consensus on the peppered moth, which is contrary to your assertion. Do you perchance have cites to some sources?
A quick web search seems to indicate that there is no consensus on the peppered moth, which is contrary to your assertion. Do you perchance have cites to some sources?
I recall that scene...and it is one that wouldn't fly in many American churches, Protestant and Catholic....the speech precisely had to be made because folks were using the book as i described I have issues with.
Last edited:
But the Bible has been waiting for what 1700 years (when the Canon was created half the christian books were tossed aside.
But if you wish to discuss the beginning and Darwin, which beginning would you like to compare, gen1 or gen2 seven days?
yikes
Note, I am perfectly willing to agree to disagree...or continue debate...your choice.
TheLightWithin
...through a glass, darkly
- Messages
- 2,141
- Reaction score
- 1,177
- Points
- 108
I definitely appreciated the West Wing. I didn't see it often, but I appreciated what they did with it.
TheLightWithin
...through a glass, darkly
- Messages
- 2,141
- Reaction score
- 1,177
- Points
- 108
It's equally or really more an information issue.
Scientific findings get updated extremely often and I don't know what the process is for updating textbooks.
Cost is surely an issue (paying reviewers and doing rewrites takes people, time, money)
moralorel
Well-Known Member
- Messages
- 735
- Reaction score
- 634
- Points
- 88
The scientific issue at hand is that we haven't, until recently, understood how birds view their prey. As you have stated, the research has often been inconclusive. However we have learned that birds often view ultraviolet light differently than we do. While we have been unable to replicate nor confirm his specific peppered moth results, we have found something interesting. He may have still been correct. A recent study found the opposite of what Darwin found, yet it still doesn't prove him wrong. The lighter moths have a 21% higher survival rate. It's because they often hide on lichen that matches their colors. These lichen still flourish amongst pollution. So Darwin's results have not been replicated, yet he may still be correct when it comes to the environment affecting the rates of consumption of these moths.
I cite the study performed at the University of Exeter from 2018.
TheLightWithin
...through a glass, darkly
- Messages
- 2,141
- Reaction score
- 1,177
- Points
- 108
I think there are the famous examples of the bible classifying bats as birds, Leviticus 11:19 and Deuteronomy 14:18
...and being imprecise enough with the value of pi to be considered wrong by mathematicians or engineers. 1 Kings 7:23
They talk about that one more here
1 Kings 7:23 | Yikes! The number Pi in the Bible | A groovy commentary
Pi in the Bible | An unusual commentary on 1 Kings 7:23, which looks at the number Pi in the Bible
If you google bible errors there are a slew of things that come up, websites, documents, books, blogs, reddit threads.
Some address inconsistencies too which may muddy the water some.
:max_bytes(150000):strip_icc()/AntiqueBible_1500-56a6e1053df78cf77290a927.jpg)
What Are the Bible's Biggest Scientific and Historical Errors?
Explore the reasons there are errors and mistakes in the Bible and why it is reasonable for all ancient texts to have factual errors.
There's a book written by Steve Allen which sort of addresses this question within a larger swath of things he's talking about
I did read something once which suggested that bible errors were not errors, but deliberate insertions to call attention to something, like a code. I don't remember where I read that or who it was by. I do not know if this theory is widely believed or not.
moralorel
Well-Known Member
- Messages
- 735
- Reaction score
- 634
- Points
- 88
Scientists decided that bats are not birds. The Bible groups flying animals together. The Bible also appears to refer to whales as fish. I recommend reading Moby Dick to see a good perspective on this argument. In short, the guy behind a desk wearing a tie says that whales are not fish. The captain of a whale ship who has spent his whole life on the ocean hunting whales says they are fish. There is much more to his argument but the author makes some very good points on this matter. I see different classifications. We reclassify species all the time. Change it in the text books, as quick as possible, and leave the Bible's classifications alone.I think there are the famous examples of the bible classifying bats as birds, Leviticus 11:19 and Deuteronomy 14:18
...and being imprecise enough with the value of pi to be considered wrong by mathematicians or engineers. 1 Kings 7:23
They talk about that one more here
1 Kings 7:23 | Yikes! The number Pi in the Bible | A groovy commentary
Pi in the Bible | An unusual commentary on 1 Kings 7:23, which looks at the number Pi in the Biblewww.abarim-publications.com
If you google bible errors there are a slew of things that come up, websites, documents, books, blogs, reddit threads.
Some address inconsistencies too which may muddy the water some.
What Are the Bible's Biggest Scientific and Historical Errors?
Explore the reasons there are errors and mistakes in the Bible and why it is reasonable for all ancient texts to have factual errors.www.learnreligions.com
There's a book written by Steve Allen which sort of addresses this question within a larger swath of things he's talking about
I did read something once which suggested that bible errors were not errors, but deliberate insertions to call attention to something, like a code. I don't remember where I read that or who it was by. I do not know if this theory is widely believed or not.
As far as Pi? No, the Bible doesn't say that π is equal to 3
Nah, there ain't no foot notes indicating the way the sons were adjudicated in the past were wrong....which applies and which don't.
Yes the interpretations and actions taken have changed as society changed, leaving a plethora of dead bodies behind.
As long as the book exists and preacherrs can point to it from the pulpit and declare it to be true...there will be issues.
But yes, America has had issues with this since before I was born.
I rather think that's the point.
The Second Vatican Council (1962–65) authoritatively expressed the Catholic Church's position on the point:
"Since everything asserted by the inspired authors or sacred writers must be held to be asserted by the Holy Spirit, it follows that the books of Scripture must be acknowledged as teaching solidly, faithfully and without error that truth which God wanted put into sacred writings for the sake of salvation."
So a qualified position, based on the Church's understanding that Scripture is not the dictated Word of God.
"Since God speaks in Sacred Scripture through men in human fashion, the interpreter of Sacred Scripture, in order to see clearly what God wanted to communicate to us, should carefully investigate what meaning the sacred writers really intended, and what God wanted to manifest by means of their words."
Furthermore, the Church interprets Scripture as part of the Deposit of Faith along with Sacred Tradition, and not in a vacuum – thus the Church continues to guide the faithful in interpretation, while open to a dialogue with the world.
It seems to me there is a tendency, from what I am informed about US Christianity, including Catholicism, on the one hand to interpret Scripture through the lens of nationalism, and on the other a fundamentalist tendency to assume an absolute inerrancy and overt literalism.
The Jewish Tradition has never believed in the inerrant position with regard to their Scripture, the Old Testament.
Likewise Islam, even though the Noble Quran is said to be inerrant, that does not mean there is but one interpretation of the text.
I read on an Ismaili website that an engagement with the Noble Quran is a 'process' and not a 'product'.
And furthermore:
"Exploring the diverse interpretations of the Qur’an, Dr Ali-de-Unzaga invites Muslims and non-Muslims to appreciate the Qur’an in the light of the venerable history of interpretation of the scriptures – not only as a historical phenomenon but also as a living text that provides a key to making some sense of today’s turbulent world. To this end, he urges the audience to become familiar with their own intellectual history as well as with the complexities of Muslim intellectual history." (emphasis mine)
I would suggest everyone read their Scriptures in the same manner – if God is Love (n1 John 4:8), then it is safe to say whoever uses sacra doctrina to persecute their neighbour has misread the book entirely.
And furthermore:
"Exploring the diverse interpretations of the Qur’an, Dr Ali-de-Unzaga invites Muslims and non-Muslims to appreciate the Qur’an in the light of the venerable history of interpretation of the scriptures – not only as a historical phenomenon but also as a living text that provides a key to making some sense of today’s turbulent world. To this end, he urges the audience to become familiar with their own intellectual history as well as with the complexities of Muslim intellectual history." (emphasis mine)
I would suggest everyone read their Scriptures in the same manner – if God is Love (n1 John 4:8), then it is safe to say whoever uses sacra doctrina to persecute their neighbour has misread the book entirely.
TheLightWithin
...through a glass, darkly
- Messages
- 2,141
- Reaction score
- 1,177
- Points
- 108
Or more like observed, discovered, that bats have physiological qualities of mammals and not of the birds
moralorel
Well-Known Member
- Messages
- 735
- Reaction score
- 634
- Points
- 88
Let me propose this scenario. Let's say the Bible made the claim that we had 8 planets in our solar system. For most of written scientific history the Bible would have been wrong. When we had only 5 planets in our solar system, critics would have laughed at the Bible. When we discovered Pluto they would also talk about how the Bible is off because we obviously have 9 planets. Scientists not only discovered new planets, but kept reclassifying planets. Currently we are at 8 planets (or 11 if you want to include dwarf planets).
The Bible simply didn't want people eating bats. I think science today would agree that eating bats is not exactly the smartest thing to do.
The entire "bats aren't birds" argument is moot anyway. The ancient Hebrew word (עוֹף) used for "birds" literally means "winged creatures". So if you are going to continue this old antiquated argument, you need to understand that you are literally saying the Bible is incorrect because it refers to bats as "winged creatures".