How much is too much evolution?

Perhaps we're getting hung up on the word 'plain/clear', when what we're really interested in is not whether a reading is a 'plain/clear' reading but whether it's the *right reading*.  I say we focus on that.

To a lot of people the 'plain' meaning of Jeremiah 10:1-5 is quite 'clear'--unmistakably 'clear': Jeremiah 10:1-5 'clearly' teaches that Christmas trees are wrong! (*and yet that would not be the 'plain/clear' meaning prior to the 16th century introduction of the Christmas tree tradition in Germany).

I'm really not interested in getting hung up on whether it's the 'plain/clear' teaching, but whether it's the right teaching.  I'm sorry if a whole bunch of people believe that's the clear, unmistakable teaching of Jeremiah 10:1-5.  They're still wrong.  Jeremiah 10:5-10 does not forbid Christmas trees.  It has nothing to do with Christmas trees.

Same thing with Genesis 1.  It really doesn't matter whether it's a 'plain/clear' reading but whether it's a *right reading*.

Fine no one can just read it, why bother reading it or anything else!? It is a total waste of time is your position?

Why do you do that?  Why do you put words in my mouth and misrepresent my view as some extreme over the top position that you know I'm not advocating?

C'mon man, you're not that obtuse.  I was extremely clear what I meant by 'just read it' and now you're going to pretend like I meant it in an overly literal way like 'we don't just read, when we read'?  Like I meant we're not doing the act of reading when we read???  C'mon.  That's ridiculous and you know it.  You're not that obtuse, so what then, are you just playing games to be difficult or funny?  Or did you truly forget the context of my statements?  Do we really need to go back to the beginning?  Do I really need to remind you that my statement was made in response to the post that criticized me saying, "You perhaps should stop reading what other people say about the Bible so much and just read and believe the Bible"?  Implying that 'other people' have colored my view of the Bible and given me wrong ideas about it, and that the 'solution' is to simply 'just read and believe the Bible' on my own---As if I or anyone can do that objectively.  As if the Bible is a matter of private interpretation.  As if my own view (and yours) is not already colored by other people's ideas learned from our culture/society.  As if a translation of the Bible isn't already colored to some degree by the 'other people' who translated it.  I've taken the time to explain all this at length giving examples and clarifying, and your take away is that I'm claiming we don't actually perform the act of reading when we read???  Right.

More importantly, you're missing my overall point (Or is it that you're purposely avoiding it?  If it were anyone else, I'd think they were purposely trying to confuse the issue or introduce red herrings.  But I don't think you would intentionally do that).  

The real question we're trying to answer is 'What is the right way to understand Genesis 1?', is it not?  So let's focus on that.  

I presented two possible readings of Genesis 1:2:

VIEW A: I said that, "When I read Genesis 1:2 the picture that comes to mind is a lifeless (void/empty), misshapen (formless) dead planet earth enveloped in darkness that is completely covered by deep waters all the way around with no continents/no land yet." 

VIEW B: Genesis 1: 2 is alluding to the chaotic, primordial, cosmic waters/ocean commonly believed in Ancient Near East pagan cosmogonies (and more specifically, in Egyptian pagan cosmogonies), and refuting them.

So far I think these are the only two 'readings' of  Genesis 1:2 on the table.  I explained why View A is a wrong reading/understanding, and gave arguments for why I think View B is a right reading/understanding.

It was a description of the moment and days of creation; the truth alone would go counter to every made-up story surrounding the event as truth does every lie and error there is. Jesus is the Way, Truth, and life dispels all other ways to God. So just reading the text gets to how it happened the way it happened, and all other stories surrounding the text that come up with some other ways are all refuted.

On that we seem to agree.  Genesis 1 appears to be a direct refutation of Egyptian creation accounts, so a *right reading* will need to take that fact into account.  When we do so we see that references in Genesis 1 are not modern scientific statements--if they were they would have little meaning to people in Bible times--but theological statements specifically directed towards refuting Egyptian pagan theology.  Genesis 1 even follows the basic sequence of events in Egyptian cosmology, as if it were a point-by-point refutation.

For the sake of clarity, are you saying that the appearance of its being a refutation of Egyptian creation accounts is a matter of fact here, or that the fact of the matter is that it is a refutation of Egyptian creation accounts?

The appearance of something is little more than a matter of opinion, not fact.

And on the 'interpretation' of scripture, those who translate such texts are generally expert in both ancient languages and theology, so know how to render them into modern English (say) while preserving the original meaning.

Secondly, when the actions of some supposed deity are being described, I'm not clear to what extent the reader can be expected to view the text through some human cultural lens. By definition, a deity has more or less limitless power, so if we're told that the first man was made from a handful of dust and the first woman from one of his ribs, why doubt this?

The Bible or better said all of the different books/letters in the Bible are not scientific papers, of course, they are not going to give us the level of detail we demand in science. That however does not mean what is discussed in scripture isn't true as written. Scripture has a much higher level or standard than that of science in my opinion. Science can change with new information, while scripture once accepted as scripture is either correct or not it cannot change. If the writer didn't tell the truth, and it becomes clear throw out the writer's work. They killed false prophets in the days the cannon was being written it is no small thing to write about, "God said."

Sure, but divine inspiration is not the issue here.  Proper interpretation, right reading/understanding is.  People often mistake their interpretation for infallibility.  It is not uncommon in the history of the church for the need to correct faulty understanding/interpretation in light of new information.  That's not a problem with divine inspiration.  That's a problem with fallible human interpretations and interpretation begins with translation.  Divine inspiration can stay the same, but that doesn't mean interpretations do.  Hermeneutics actually is part science, and as you noted like in science new information can reveal our interpretation was faulty (or can conversely reinforce our interpretation).  But that's a good thing, because if we discover we're interpreting something wrong then that means we were misunderstanding what was being communicated by divine revelation!  Thus, it's important to know if we're doing that so we can fix our interpretations so they're more in line with the divine revelation.

I'm becoming slightly lost here, so could you illustrate with an example of your choosing how a particular verse should be read, as opposed to its seeming literal sense as laid down in the Bible?

What do you mean by 'literal sense'?

He is saying to take a verse anywhere where on first glance it appears the meaning of of it is in a literal sense, but actually isn’t.

Literal meaning in an actual “historical” sense, like on first glance some parts of Genesis seem to lay out the events in a historical manner.

Yes, humans too.  Evolution simply means change so any genetic/genomic change no matter how small qualifies as evolution.  That said, there is evidence the human genome is continuing to change/evolve.  Each person is born with 75 or so new mutations on average that are not found/contributed by the parents.

In the context of my post you quote, YECs have not demonstrated that there is a barrier to further change.  That's not to say there aren't limits to change.  There clearly are.  Developmental processes, pleitropy, epistasis, past evolutionary history and more can constrain or limit the avenues/options available to future evolution.  Morphospace also limits that possibilities, which is just a fancy way of saying there's a finite number of functional morphologies.  That is, some animal shapes/forms that are physically impossible--I don't mean by evolution--just impossible period to exist from an engineering standpoint, which limits the possible morphological types that can exist.

But the barriers YECs claim are there have not been demonstrated and evidence for genomic evolution calls into the question the very idea of such a barrier.

I was genuinely impressed with the teenager that posted in this thread a week or so ago for really making an attempt at answering the OP.  In fact, I learned something new myself from one of the links he posted.  It turns out that some YECs have proposed more formal definitions of 'kinds' complete with evaluative criteria that they have subjected to statistical analysis in an attempt to not only define 'kinds' but determine which organisms constitute kinds.  They have employed similar techniques used by biologists in cladistics and phyletic analysis to make evolutionary trees (without the evolutionary trees part).  YECs have even given this 'field of study' a name: *baraminology*.  In short, they look for discontinuities, which do exist because of functional constraints on morphospace as I explained above (not every conceivable body form is possible, so general lack of gradualism should not surprise us).  But it has mostly seemed to backfire because the results they're getting match predictions of evolutionary theory with evolutionary related groups forming nested hierarchies instead of random distribution predicted by YECs. 

Another interesting result--and this is the reason why I actually brought all this up because it directly relates to your question about human evolution--the YECs also found that human-primates did not make the 'cut' for different 'kinds'.  That is, based on the criteria they used and statistically tested to determine 'kinds', humans and apes were too similar to each other and so they did not qualify as separate 'kinds'!

However, even though the results did not turn out in their favor I was still very pleased to learn that there are YECs out there trying to do these type of studies.  That's a step in the right direction and type of work that needs to be done in order for YECs to earn credibility.

And that's why I ask because 'literal' does not mean the same thing to everyone.  To some, 'literal' means absence of figurative, metaphorical language.  To others, 'literal' means the 'plain' meaning or what 'seems' to be the straightforward meaning on the surface. 

Still others equate 'literal' with the historical-grammatical method of interpretation that seeks to interpret according to the *intended meaning* as determined by grammar, syntax, genre and the historical/cultural context in which the text was written.  As such it recognizes figurative, metaphorical language where it occurs.  The Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy (CSBI) adopts this view.  This is also standard practice in hermeneutics and essentially what I advocate as well (and have been advocating in my posts).  'Literal' by this understanding means interpreting according to the original, intended meaning of the text (and requires us to interpret within the proper historical/cultural context!).  By this definition, I interpret things 'literally'.

But because of the many different senses in which people use 'literal' it can cause confusion, so I prefer not to use the term at all.  People also tend to pit 'literal' vs. 'allegorical/metaphorical/figurative' but that is a false dichotomy (As if those are the only two possibilities when they're not; as if the Bible can't contain both types and more when it does).  This just compounds the problem.

***That's why I prefer *right reading/understanding* because that's what we're really after, and a right reading/understanding is most likely to be achieved by the historical-grammatical approach that seeks to understand the original, intended meaning of the text by interpreting in the proper historical/social/cultural context.

From Wikipedia: "The historical-grammatical method is a Christian hermeneutical method that strives to discover the biblical authors' original intended meaning in the text.  According to the historical-grammatical method, if based on an analysis of the grammatical style of a passage (with consideration to its cultural, historical, and literary context), it appears that the author intended to convey an account of events that actually happened, then the text should be taken as representing history; passages should only be interpreted symbolically, poetically, or allegorically if to the best of our understanding, that is what the writer intended to convey to the original audience."

Recall my post about 'established facts' in antiquity being a statement of probability.  Personally, as a general rule I try not to make ironclad statements of absolute certainty, but try to always leave open the possibility of new information.  That said, a possible Babylonian & Mesopotamian background to Genesis has longed been entertained and interest in this (now largely discredited) theory has taken center stage and pretty much stolen the limelight with the effect that the work of Egyptologists pointing out possible Egyptian background to Genesis creation account going back to the early 1900s largely went unnoticed.  

All that has been changing over the past 3-4 decades or so, as scholars increasingly believe an Egyptian background for Genesis 1--not Babylonian or Mesopotamian.  

It has long been recognized that Genesis 1 contains anti-pagan polemics against Ancient Near East creation theologies in general (*an article from 1983 comes to mind, but I think it goes back further).  But the more recent change has been the increasing recognition that the anti-pagan polemic is against Egyptian cosmogonies specifically.   Here's a good summary of the evidence (*the 'conclusion' I keep posting is from this article):

Genesis_1_and_Ancient_Egyptian_Creation_Myths (2008)

Thematic/conceptual parallels of the Genesis creation account with other Ancient Near East cosmogonies like Babylonian, Sumerian has long been pointed out but that's usually about as far as it goes.  With the Egyptian creation accounts, however, scholars have noted similarities/parallels in at least three lines of evidence: (1) lexical/grammatical/etymology, (2) literary/structural parallels (similar sequence/order of events), and (3) thematic/conceptual parallels.

In addition to reviewing the evidence, the article also cites a number of scholars who have come to the same type of conclusion.  Some examples:

"The number of parallels and degree of correspondence between Genesis 1 and major Egyptian creation myths is remarkable. It is difficult to dismiss them as mere coincidence."

Atwell remarks, "The conclusion is stark and compelling: ancient Egypt provided the foundation tradition which was shaped and handed on by successive priestly [sic] generations."

"Hoffmeier and Currid, two evangelical Egyptologists, also suggest that these Egyptian creation myths influenced the way the Israelite author thought and talked about creation; however, they suggest he recast this inherited tradition to make it acceptable within orthodox Yahwism"

Atwell observes, "When the template of ancient Egyptian creation traditions is held up against the Genesis 1 creation account there is a quite remarkable correspondence" ("An Egyptian Source for Genesis 1," 465).

Currid writes, "There exists such a magnitude of parallels that it could not be by mere chance. Dare we say that it was a freak of antiquity? I think not" ("An Examination of the Egyptian Background of the Genesis Cosmogony," 39).

Likewise, Strange says, "The similarities in detail and structure are too close to be accidental
("Some Notes on Biblical and Egyptian Theology," 358).

***So again, I like to avoid claims that suggest absolute certainty, and I'm no expert on this, but the impression I get is that the evidence is impressive and convincing to Egyptologists.  I would venture to say that it's about as 'established fact' as one can get when it comes to things this old.  To my knowledge, the level of similarities between Ancient Near East creation accounts of *different* nations is unparalleled (but again, my knowledge is limited on the subject).

Egyptian creation account similarities/parallels to Genesis 1 from Pyramid Texts, Coffin Texts, The Book of the Dead, The Memphite Theology (Shabaka Stone), and more: