DAVID: My guess is answer 3. He steered ape-forms into proto-human forms and let evolution finish the job.
> 
> dhw: Thank you. If there is a God, I would find such an experimental version of evolution more convincing than your earlier one of preprogramming for humans, as it allows for the higgledy-piggledy bush with all its apparently random comings and goings. So too, of course, does the version with humans as part of an unguided process of experimentation by the "intelligent cell/genome", no matter what may have been the source of the latter. 
> 
> dhw: Our starting point was the claim made by you and Tony that the bible is not anti-evolution. Your Theory of Theistic-Creationist-Darwinian-Common-Descent Evolution probably takes us as far as we can go on that issue, unless Tony has something to add.-I think we are done. I'm not as precise as the religious folks who presume to know exactly who God is, or what He wants, or how He does it. They are overwhelmingly presumptuous.

dhw: I do like a bit of clarity now and then, so let me approach this from yet another angle. Do you believe 1) that your God created humans from scratch, 2) that humans and chimps sprang from a common ancestor without any interference by your God, or 3) that your God grabbed hold of a few existing homochimps and personally manipulated their genome so that they would walk upright and grow big brains?
> 
> If your answer is 1) or 3), and purely to satisfy my curiosity, please tell us if you think he intervened on separate occasions to create Lucy, Neanderthal man AND homo sapiens.- My guess is answer is 3. He steered ape-forms into proto-human forms and let evolution finish the job.


> dhw: Here is a dictionary definition of "Creationism": "Creationism is the theory that living species have separate origins, rather than having evolved from a common ancestor (see EVOLUTION)." (New Fontana Dictionary of Modern Thought). -
Like Gertrude Stein, creationism is creationism is creationism. The definition you quote is a fundamentalist literal definition taken from the words of the Bible. It is not my definition. Any creation of species by God, by any method He choses, is a form of creationism. He obviously chose an evolutionary method.


> dhw: If your opinion is that the bible does not advocate separate creation of humans and other "kinds", or that separate creation of humans and other "kinds" is not anti-evolution, we can end the discussion!-You have expessed my opinion. Accepting theistic evolution solves any problems.
> 
> dhw: I would regard this as theistic dogma that has no basis in science, but of course there is no countering the argument that you follow your own conclusions and they fit what you see scientifically!-Thank you. The religion of Turell is uniquely mine.


> dhw: I have learned an enormous amount from you about the science that underpins your beliefs, and your arguments are as powerful a case as one could wish for against the dogmas of atheism, but they ALWAYS run up against the problem that science cannot support the dogmas of theism. The conclusions I have listed above are gleaned from your various posts, but I would suggest that not one of them can possibly be reached from science alone.-I don't really know why we are discussing the creation subject of the bible. I don't use it. I have opinions about it. My opinion disagrees with yours. I do not follow the dogmas of theism. I follow my own conclusions. My view of the OT allows for the conclusion that theistic evolution fits the narrative. God can create species any way He wants to. Theistic evolution is one form of creationism. It fits what I see scientifically.

dhw: It ties in with the panpsychist theory which I have been toying with, and of which David is understandably sceptical, though he refuses to be drawn on the equally nebulous subject of how God might possibly have worked his magic.-How God does his thing, of course, is nebulous. and I keep repeating your reading of the words in the bible is much too literal.


> Tony: This gives us one REALLY strong point of discussion. Where the bible discusses science that we have observed, it agrees. Where we get tripped up is with the conjecture regarding things that have NOT been observed. On one side, you have the evolutionist arguing that their conjecture is correct, on the other, you have the theist claiming that their (evolutionists) conjecture is wrong.-dhw's problem is he reads the bible too literally.

dhw: In all seriousness, though, we need to agree what level we wish to discuss things on. If the bible, like reality itself, is merely what we want it to be, all discussion becomes pointless..... You and Tony have stated categorically that it is not anti-evolution, and that is the statement I'm disputing. In the Genesis account, even according to Tony's interpretation, the text clearly argues for separate creation, as against the theory that ALL SPECIES including humans are "the lineal descendants" from the earliest organisms. I've challenged you to find a way of interpreting this particular text to show that it is not opposed to Darwin's theory. If you cannot do so, then none of your justified generalizations and none of your references to other passages concerning swarms of creatures, eons and the Big Bang can alter the fact that the only biblical version we know is pro separate creation of species and anti common descent, and is therefore anti-evolution.
> -That is why I specifically made clear precisely which version, or sub-version, of evolution is acceptable in biblical terms: all things change, all things evolve, but within constraints that can not be crossed. -You are making distinctions that need not be made. To evolve means to change. The biblical writings do not argue against change. They argue against abiogenesis. They argue against cross-species boundary crossing, i.e. a bird from a reptile. But you are trying to throw the baby out with the bathwater. Change happens! It has been observed! However, abiogenesis has not been. Species spontaneous generating or morphing into other species has not been. -Common decent, in a more limited scope than is generally applied is also acceptable. For example, there are hundreds of 'breeds' of dogs, and it is reasonable to conclude that they all derived from a common ancestor. However, we have never seen a dog become more than a dog of a different type. I am not sure why anyone would think that science and theism are mutually exclusive. That would, by definition, be insanity. -To address the later topic of specially created human, I have no doubt that was the case, but I also can not substantiate it with anything other than this one thought: -All documented discoveries of the 'homo' variety show traces of being distinctly human, even if they are humans of different stature, culture, or build.-All recorded discoveries of simians have been consistent with what we would expect of simians. -In those few cases where it was claimed that they found missing links, they have invariably either been discovered to be Hoaxes, or later discovered to actually be simian fossils. -In short, there is no OBSERVATIONAL evidence to support the CONJECTURE of common decent between humans and simians.-This gives us one REALLY strong point of discussion. Where the bible discusses science that we have observed, it agrees. Where we get tripped up is with the conjecture regarding things that have NOT been observed. On one side, you have the evolutionist arguing that their conjecture is correct, on the other, you have the theist claiming that their (evolutionists) conjecture is wrong.

dhw: If God created the evolutionary mechanism, but stepped in to do a bit of separate creating whenever he felt like it, with us as the prime example - which is perhaps Tony's belief and yours ... the bible would indeed be correct. But separate creation is anti-evolution. Ergo the bible would still be anti-evolution.-You have finally hit upon it. What I believe and I think Tony does. Separate creation without evolution is what I have never discussed in relating evolution to the bible.


> dhw: Evolution says that kinds evolved from earlier kinds, not that they were "created" or "made" by God, and most important of all, evolution says that humans and chimps evolved from a common ancestor, not that God specially created man out of the dust of the ground and made woman from Adam's rib. As I keep saying, long periods are not the issue here, which is no doubt why you prefer to cherry-pick that part of the text and gloss over the part which forms the basis of the biblical creationist (i.e. anti-evolution) argument. However, your fellow theist Tony acknowledges that the bible is anti-common descent, and since he first stated that the bible was not anti-evolution, I assume that he now recants. You will not recant because you are as stubborn as I am!-Isn't the theory of theistic evolution a form of creationism? Then the bible is correct.


> bbella: I have probably asked this before, David, but what do you think of the Bible Code?-Since I am Jewish I am interested in interpretations from the Old Testament. I'm not aware that the Mishna or the Talmud say anything about codes. I'm aware the New Testament has been explored for codes. Beyond that I have no knowledge or opinion. But people like to be conspiratorial.


> > dhw:In all seriousness, though, we need to agree what level we wish to discuss things on. If the bible, like reality itself, is merely what we want it to be, all discussion becomes pointless.
> 
> The Jewish sages have spent over a thousand years developing commentaries on the bible. If one can look at the simple words for meanings, as you demand,why are they still producing commentaries? The bible is an allegory. There is more hidden in it than meets the simple eye.-I have probably asked this before, David, but what do you think of the Bible Code?