Evolution and The Bible are incompatible

"He also uses the foolish things of the world to shame the wise." This is not a powerful argument for at least one very particular reason. Namely, if it is true, my opponent must admit that by all accounts my position is more likely and reasonable. My opponent presents his case as if it were reasonable and, by his accounts, likely. But what is foolish about believing in that which is reasonable and likely? So far as I can see, nothing at all is foolish about it. So my opponent can believe 1 of 2 things. (1) That his position is unreasonable and foolish. (2) My position is unreasonable and foolish If (1), he must admit that my position is more reasonable and likely in comparison to his proffered conclusion. If (2), he must admit that my position works with his argument and is thus possibly true given its foolish status. So no matter the choice, the resolution is negated. To make matters worse, however, is the fact that there are innumerable foolish positions that one may affirm, millions and billions of which are incompatible with the Bible. According to my opponent, these foolish positions are likely true given the mere fact that they are foolish. In fact, so foolish is this line of reasoning that it must be true! "You can write rhythmically and poetically about a true event that happened. Simply using poetic language doesn't mean the text is drastically different than what the poetry is indicating." There is simply no winning with my opponent. First, he maintains that there is no reason to think it is not literal. When confronted with evidence of clear poetic usage and the Genesis story's reliance on preexisting mythopoetic stories, he maintains that poetic language and rhyme does not mean that the story could not also be literal. Well, of course it does not necessarily mean that the story could not also be literal. What it does, show, however, is that there is very clear precedent for concluding that the Genesis story does not refer to actual, historical and scientific events - the possibility to the contrary notwithstanding. Contention One: The Language Used My opponent's position on this matter is one that is particularly hard to swallow. His position is that light in Genesis 1 was God's glory. Let's look at the evidence. First, of course, there is no mention of this in Genesis. Second, it contradicts pretty clear textual evidence to the contrary. As a tertiary concern, it is also completely ad hoc. As I mentioned in my previous round, the Hebrew word ereb denotes a period in the day where light is absent from the sky, namely night or evening. It is used specifically in reference to the separating of darkness from light (which is specifically referenced as being the duty of the sun). In order to maintain a literal interpretation, my opponent must conclude that, before the existence of the sun, God literally turned his glory off and on so that evening and morning actually happened. At this juncture, though, I would like to bring up why my position is the best explanation given our current historical models. For instance, C. Behan McCullagh gives seven conditions that compose a successful argument for the best explanation (1). A cursory look at those conditions will quickly reveal that my opponent's position is not very strong. For instance, my opponent's position fails the rule of parsimony. In order to affirm that the creation account is literal, we must commit ourselves to at least the following beliefs (that are, by consequence, ad hoc): the earth was created with the appearance of age; God's glory was the light for the first three days in Genesis; the sun was the light starting on day 4 and on; the poetic phrases and Hebraic parallelism do not negate a literal interpretation; Genesis' use of preexisting creation myths is irrelevant. But all these things need not be assumed if we abandon the presupposition that the Genesis account must be read historically. We can take the poetic language and the reliance on existing creation myths seriously. We needn't create new, auxilerlly understandings in order to reconcile contradictions like the earth's age and light being created before its source. Contention Two: Adam and Eve It is a basic illogical fallacy to assume the truth of a position given the absence of an alternative. So even if I could not come up with a formulated reason for what things mean in Genesis given a poetic, non-literal approach, it is wholly irrelevant to the fact that there is abundant evidence that the Genesis creation account is not literal. As I explained in my previous round, the details of the story need not have direct application as the story may have been to combat other creation myths and establish things like the Sabbath and that YHWH created. Contention Three: The Jewish Workweek "Which of Jesus' parables did He in no way explain?" First, of course, is Jesus' own words that the purpose of his parables were to "conceal" heavenly meaning from those whose hearts were hard (cf. Mt. 13:10-17). Furthermore, the following parables have no direct explanation in the text: - New Cloth on an Old Garment - New Wine in Old Wine Skins - The Parable of the mustard seed (specifically it is unclear how one should interpret this in light of it being representative of the kingdom of God). - The Parable of the Leaven - The Parable of the Householder - The parable of the fig tree etc... Moreover, saying that by the text alone I cannot get an Old Universe is not substantially different than saying that from the Lord of the Rings text alone I cannot get modern rocket science. Of course I cannot, that would first have to presuppose that the Bible, or the Lord of the Rings, is such a book that would contain content on such matters. In essence, it must presuppose that the Bible is a science book -- which it is not. Furthermore, my opponent creates a false dichotomy between scripture and the revelations of science. It is scripture that tells us that God is evident in nature (Romans 1:20 Psalm 19). If the universe seems old and the Bible says it is young, there seems to be a contradiction. So far from God being evident in nature, a literal interpretation of Genesis makes God the antithesis of it. (1) Evolution and the Bible are possibly compatible The Bible says that we must cut off the hand and gouge out the eye the causes sin? Is it possible that this is not literal? If yes, than my opponent tacitly agrees that the Bible does not always say what it means. In other words, it uses literary style and flourish to make a point that is not directly denoted by what is said. If it is just possible, even if totally unlikely, that the Genesis account is not literal, then it is possible that evolution and the Bible are compatible and the resolution is negated. (2) Evolution and the Bible are probably compatible To say that God needed the appearance of age in order for things to work from the "get-go" is a statement that God is not all powerful, or, at least, did not create ex nihilo. Why is it that a God who is all-powerful cannot create a universe that appears as it is. The star example is poor because it was God who created the stars out of nothing. Surely he could have made stars in such a way that their light did not need billions of light years in order to reach earth. Surely an omnipotent God could make conditions such that his created universe looked just as young as it actually was - there is certainly nothing logically incoherent about thinking so. The options then, can be presented thusly: (x1) God is not omnipotent and could not create a universe without the appearance of age. (x2) God is omnipotent and purposefully, though not out of necessity, fashioned the earth and universe in a way that appears much older than it actually is (the struggle being to determine how this is not deceitful). Choose as you will, but both options are contradicted by scripture. (3)Relevent difference between wine and creation ex nihilo.