Dawkins v. O'Reilly, Genesis v. Evidence
Richard Dawkins was on Bill O'Reilly recently and the tenor of the conversation was pretty much what you'd imagine it to be. O'Reilly's position is that he's "throwing in with Jesus rather than you guys because you guys can't tell me how it all got here ... until you guys figure that out I'm sticking with judeo-christian philosophy" and that he "believes in evolution overseen by a higher power".
I don't get this for a couple of reasons.
First, O'Reilly seems to be saying that the only thing standing between him and the rejection of Jesus is an explanation for nucleic acid synthesis. That's a pretty weird statement if you take him to be sincere, which I do not. If he believes that evolution is overseen by a higher power he can just as well believe that chemistry is overseen by a higher power, as I'm pretty sure he will if abiogenesis is figured out.
Second, he's avoiding incomplete knowledge by reverting to knowledge that's even less complete. Even in the broadest allegorical or metaphorical sense the evidence contradicts both versions of Genesis, which also contradict each other. Genesis 1:1-2:4 lists the order of creation as 1. light and darkness, 2. firmament, 3. water and dry land, 4. seed-bearing vegetation, then sun moon and stars, 5. fish and birds, 6. wild animals and livestock, 7. a man. Genesis 2:4-25 lists the order as earth and heavens, man, trees, beasts and birds and livestock, woman made from flesh of man. Compare these timelines to the timeline commonly accepted by science:
13.73Gy: Light (big bang)
12.7Gy: The Heavens (stars)
4.54Gy: Sun, Earth, Moon (solar system)
3.45Gy: Life (cyanobacteria)
3Gy: Plants (photosynthesis)
1.2Gy: Woman (sexual reproduction)
580My: Fish (simple aquatic life)
524My: Fish (vertebrates)
425My: Fish (sharks), Plants (vascular)
400My: Animals (amphibians)
395My: Fish (bony)
370My: Plants (seed bearing)
315My: Animals (reptiles)
275-248My: Animals (transitional mammals)
150My: Birds
125My: Plants (flowering)
13My: Man (hominidae)
200Ky: Man (homo sapiens)
8.5Ky: Livestock (domesticated animals)
Genesis is a mess no matter how much allegorical wiggle room you allow. The sun and moon arrived before the seas. Animals arrived after fish but before birds. Plants arrived before fish but their seeds arrived after fish and animals. Genesis even messes up some intuitively obvious points like men being made from flesh of woman or plants being created before the sun. Genesis is, at best, an incomplete and unordered list of the most noticeable things which happen to be alive on earth right now. "Throwing in" with the bible because science can't provide proof for natual explanations of nucleic acid synthesis makes about as much sense as "throwing in" with Harry Potter because Fodor's Guide can't explain the geology of Britain. Fodor's information might be incomplete, but J. K. Rowling's is more inaccurate at best not to mention demonstrably false.
I'll say it again: religious people should avoid scientific scrutiny by avoiding statements which can be disproven scientifically. It ought to be enough to say that the Bible is a collection of stories, some based on historical fact and some not, some with moral lessons and some not, some of those moral lessons having contemporary value and some not. Stories with moral value aren't necessarily true, stories which are true aren't necessarily valuable, and stories which are both historically true and morally valuable aren't any less valuable if they're included next to stories that aren't. Evidence is already a red herring if you're talking about supernatural belief, and I'm frustrated that Dawkins didn't just call out O'Reilly on the absurdity of what he was saying. "Really, Bill? That's the only thing stopping you from abandoning the moral guidance of Jesus and the Bible? You're being intellectually dishonest. Anyone who already believes that evolution is unnecessarily overseen by a higher power will have no trouble believing that chemistry is also unnecessarily overseen by a higher power once we can explain how."
I don't get this for a couple of reasons.
First, O'Reilly seems to be saying that the only thing standing between him and the rejection of Jesus is an explanation for nucleic acid synthesis. That's a pretty weird statement if you take him to be sincere, which I do not. If he believes that evolution is overseen by a higher power he can just as well believe that chemistry is overseen by a higher power, as I'm pretty sure he will if abiogenesis is figured out.
Second, he's avoiding incomplete knowledge by reverting to knowledge that's even less complete. Even in the broadest allegorical or metaphorical sense the evidence contradicts both versions of Genesis, which also contradict each other. Genesis 1:1-2:4 lists the order of creation as 1. light and darkness, 2. firmament, 3. water and dry land, 4. seed-bearing vegetation, then sun moon and stars, 5. fish and birds, 6. wild animals and livestock, 7. a man. Genesis 2:4-25 lists the order as earth and heavens, man, trees, beasts and birds and livestock, woman made from flesh of man. Compare these timelines to the timeline commonly accepted by science:
13.73Gy: Light (big bang)
12.7Gy: The Heavens (stars)
4.54Gy: Sun, Earth, Moon (solar system)
3.45Gy: Life (cyanobacteria)
3Gy: Plants (photosynthesis)
1.2Gy: Woman (sexual reproduction)
580My: Fish (simple aquatic life)
524My: Fish (vertebrates)
425My: Fish (sharks), Plants (vascular)
400My: Animals (amphibians)
395My: Fish (bony)
370My: Plants (seed bearing)
315My: Animals (reptiles)
275-248My: Animals (transitional mammals)
150My: Birds
125My: Plants (flowering)
13My: Man (hominidae)
200Ky: Man (homo sapiens)
8.5Ky: Livestock (domesticated animals)
Genesis is a mess no matter how much allegorical wiggle room you allow. The sun and moon arrived before the seas. Animals arrived after fish but before birds. Plants arrived before fish but their seeds arrived after fish and animals. Genesis even messes up some intuitively obvious points like men being made from flesh of woman or plants being created before the sun. Genesis is, at best, an incomplete and unordered list of the most noticeable things which happen to be alive on earth right now. "Throwing in" with the bible because science can't provide proof for natual explanations of nucleic acid synthesis makes about as much sense as "throwing in" with Harry Potter because Fodor's Guide can't explain the geology of Britain. Fodor's information might be incomplete, but J. K. Rowling's is more inaccurate at best not to mention demonstrably false.
I'll say it again: religious people should avoid scientific scrutiny by avoiding statements which can be disproven scientifically. It ought to be enough to say that the Bible is a collection of stories, some based on historical fact and some not, some with moral lessons and some not, some of those moral lessons having contemporary value and some not. Stories with moral value aren't necessarily true, stories which are true aren't necessarily valuable, and stories which are both historically true and morally valuable aren't any less valuable if they're included next to stories that aren't. Evidence is already a red herring if you're talking about supernatural belief, and I'm frustrated that Dawkins didn't just call out O'Reilly on the absurdity of what he was saying. "Really, Bill? That's the only thing stopping you from abandoning the moral guidance of Jesus and the Bible? You're being intellectually dishonest. Anyone who already believes that evolution is unnecessarily overseen by a higher power will have no trouble believing that chemistry is also unnecessarily overseen by a higher power once we can explain how."