Textual analysis is an inexact science. This is why I highly doubt that the Documentary Hypothesis (DH) will ever be definitively proven, barring surprising new archaeological discoveries of the earlier texts. In fact, there are many competing versions of DH explaining the details of the compilation of the text, each with some advantages and deficiencies. However, there are a multitude of questions that DH in general explains even if we will never know the exact chain of development. As an illustration, consider the multitude of "doublets" in the Bible. These are stories that are appear two (or more) times in the Pentateuch but differ in some important details, or consist of two different narrative strands woven together. A partial list includes:
Creation
Abraham/Isaac Journey to Egypt/Gerar
Hagar Vision
Esau's Wives
The Ten Commandments
Inaugurating the Tabernacle
Moses Striking the Rock
The Death of Aaron
See Also: http://www.2think.org/hundredsheep/bible/dh.shtml
Believers almost always reject the documentary hypothesis because of it replaces infallible Divine authorship of the Bible and a cadre of human writers sometimes working at cross purposes. Religious Judaism is especially incompatible, since the Talmud often makes important scriptural exegetical derivations based on a single extra word or letter. They say that claiming multiple authors for the Bible is based on gross speculation, and there a degree of truth to that. Proponents of DH often have to invoke the actions of a later "redactor" to fix inconsistencies in particular theory. However, traditional authorities themselves often have to rely on strained ad hoc explanations to resolve contradictions and doublets in the Bible. It seems to me that the only way to believe that the Bible is the product of a single author is to start with that assumption and find a way to justify it with a creative reading of the text. In other words, an unbiased observer starting without a preference for either the Documentary Hypothesis or the Traditional explanation would likely conclude that although there is conclusive evidence for any one documentary theory, the premise is much more sound than belief sole author.
Friday, June 6, 2008
Sunday, June 1, 2008
What about Viruses?
I recently attended a lecture on viruses and it never ceases to amaze me how successful these little snippets of genetic material have become at self-replication. In fact, making copies is basically all they do. Viruses exist solely to reproduce. They are little more than a protein coat holding rouge bits of DNA or RNA with just enough instructions to hijack a cell and cause to be make more protein coats and copies of the code. As things that aren't generally considered to be alive, these pesky little guys are amazing case studies for evolution and natural selection.
I bring this up because proponents of Intelligent Design originally tried to make the case that ID should be considered a "Science" on equal footing with evolution. It was not a "religion," they claimed, because the "Designer" could be any intelligent being/deity/cosmic force. Of course, the Cristian God was identified as the "Designer" much more often than Zeus or an anomalous probability wave. The Dover decision made clear that this was nothing more than a sham, and the recent movie Expelled doesn't even try to mask the connection. But even before the pro-ID bunch abandoned all semblance of "non-denominational" Intelligent Design, there was, and is, a huge logical problem. If a "Designer" is necessary for life to have come into being, how could viruses exist unless he/she/they/it also made them? And for that matter, what about genetic diseases or birth defects? A "Designer" intelligent and powerful enough to make all life could certainly have done a better job or at least left our the worst disease causing germs. There is a need for something of a "theology" about why things sometimes don't work, be it Pandora's box or Eve's Fruit or some other creation myth. The only alternatives are to say that either the "Designer" harbors come malicious intent or has some secert plan beyond the ken of mere mortals. Only the latter is acceptable to most adherents, but even this is a "theology" in its own fashio. The truth is there can be no coherent theory of Intelligent Design without making claims regarding the "Designer(s)," which is why it was correct identified as religion, not science.
I bring this up because proponents of Intelligent Design originally tried to make the case that ID should be considered a "Science" on equal footing with evolution. It was not a "religion," they claimed, because the "Designer" could be any intelligent being/deity/cosmic force. Of course, the Cristian God was identified as the "Designer" much more often than Zeus or an anomalous probability wave. The Dover decision made clear that this was nothing more than a sham, and the recent movie Expelled doesn't even try to mask the connection. But even before the pro-ID bunch abandoned all semblance of "non-denominational" Intelligent Design, there was, and is, a huge logical problem. If a "Designer" is necessary for life to have come into being, how could viruses exist unless he/she/they/it also made them? And for that matter, what about genetic diseases or birth defects? A "Designer" intelligent and powerful enough to make all life could certainly have done a better job or at least left our the worst disease causing germs. There is a need for something of a "theology" about why things sometimes don't work, be it Pandora's box or Eve's Fruit or some other creation myth. The only alternatives are to say that either the "Designer" harbors come malicious intent or has some secert plan beyond the ken of mere mortals. Only the latter is acceptable to most adherents, but even this is a "theology" in its own fashio. The truth is there can be no coherent theory of Intelligent Design without making claims regarding the "Designer(s)," which is why it was correct identified as religion, not science.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
