God said, "Let there be light." And there was light. And God saw the light, that it was good, and God divided light from the darkness. And God called the light Day, and the darkness He called Night. And it was evening and it was morning, first day (3).The quotation presents the idea of how day and night were created on the first day; but unlike On the Origin of Species in which an idea is presented and then the reader can choose how that message fits in with their thinking, the message here is this is what happened, the reader can accept it or be wrong. Another difference I noticed while reading this first reading of Genesis was the position in which humans are put. The idea of natural selection puts humans on a similar playing field, so to speak, as every other creature because we would all be adapting and in the same struggle for existence. Where the text here describes:
And God created the human in his image,
in the image of God He created him,
male and female He created them.
In other words, humans have the job to conquer the world and are of higher standing than the other creatures. This idea might stem from how humans were created in the image of God, where as every other creature was not. One question that this reading left me with was, even if humans were made in the image of God and other creatures were not, does that really mean that we have a higher standing? I found it interesting to compare the presentation of the two books even though they are two distinct ideas they approach the same topics and just lay out the information in different ways, and I look forward to hearing your comments on that question if you have thought about that as well.And God blessed them, and God said to them,"Be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth and conquer it (5).
I strongly agree with your first assertion, but less so with your second. It's true that this translation uses short declarative sentences to describe all the things God did. I also agree that the Bible puts humans at a higher standing. However, Darwin, in his text, very clearly stays away from the matter of human evolution. I think that his reasoning is partially so that his readers don't have to reconcile their views of human creation as the Genesis presents it with evolution because the two are so incredibly different.
ReplyDeleteI do really admire Iska's points on the differences on the two books, but I have to agree with Emma on the point she discussed. Darwin does seem to stay away from such topic. Possibly this was to prevent any more notions against his abstract, since it was already considered blasphemy against the church those days. Though he does not bring this part into his abstract, he seems to lead up to that part, but has not completed the study yet. Like Iska says, humans are brought to such a high position in the world and have complete dominion over it in Genesis. This is such a different outlook on the world. Are humans more important any other living being? Or are we all the same from the same species? Genesis declares this to the very point that God says "Look, I have given you every seed-bearing plant on the face of all the earth and every tree that has fruit bearing seed, yours they will be for food. And to all the beasts of the earth and to all the fowl of the heavens and to all that crawls on the earth..." (1:29-30).
ReplyDeleteIn considering Iska's first observation, I think the context of the texts are important to consider. Genesis is a part of a religious text that people have chosen to accept as the truth. On the other hand, Darwin is presenting a new idea and attempting to convince people of its truth. As a result, he must be careful not to alienate his audience by directly contradicting their beliefs.
ReplyDeleteIska, to answer your question as it's posed, yes. If humans were created in the image of this particular God and by Him, then His commands to conquer the Earth and to hold sway would be the word of God. Considering the question through a strictly scientific lens, humans are just another species that evolved from generations of passing down advantageous modifications. Since every animal has gone through the exact same process, Homo sapiens are nothing special. Humans are the most intelligent animal, but there is no word of God commanding them to conquer and hold sway. In attempt to answer Liezel's question: "Are humans more important any other living being?" From Genesis' perspective, yes, and from On the Origins of Species, no, based on what I stated earlier. However, personally, I think we're momentarily important to fix the climate before it ruins everything for everyone.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteWhile Iska does a good job describing how in Genesis God creates man in his image and charges man with conquering the earth, I feel further understanding of man’s supposed superiority to the rest of creation can be seen in his use of agriculture. The reason nothing grows on the day God creates the soil is that “the Lord God had not caused rain to fall on the earth and there was no human to till the soil...” (2:5-6). Humans are portrayed as a vital to creation, as their labor is needed to help plants exist. This sets them apart from all creation, and gives them a God-like quality besides appearance. God himself “planted a garden in Eden” (2:8) and works to “sprout from the soil every tree lovely to look at and good for food” (2:9). As the only creature capable of tending to agriculture, man fulfills a similar duty to God the creator. Interestingly, the area encompassing the rivers described in 2:10-15 is the area from which the agriculture used by the original authors of Genesis would have originated. Man’s use of agriculture seems to be the quality which sets him apart from the rest of creation and makes him unique and superior, more so even than his physical appearance.
ReplyDelete