Did God Understand Genetics?

by JosephAlward 12 Replies latest watchtower bible

• 

  JosephAlward

  The Genesis writer tells the story of Laban’s agreement to give as wages to Jacob, the tender of his goats and lambs, all light-streaked goats and dark-streaked lambs born while the flocks were in his care. To increase the birth rate of streaked animals, Jacob made white stripes on brown tree branches by peeling away dark strips of bark to expose the blond wood underneath, and put these branches in the animals’ drinking troughs, where they came to drink when they were in heat. After the animals had mated in front of the branches, they bore young that were streaked; the normally brown goats were streaked white, and the normally white lambs were streaked brown.

  It’s hard to believe that this story can actually be found in the Bible, but it can. Here it is:

  "Jacob, however, took fresh-cut branches from poplar, almond and plane trees and made white stripes on them by peeling the bark and exposing the white inner wood of the branches. Then he placed the peeled branches in all the watering troughs, so that they would be directly in front of the flocks when they came to drink. When the flocks were in heat and came to drink, they mated in front of the branches. And they bore young that were streaked or speckled or spotted." (Genesis 30:37-39)

  There is no evidence that this didn’t happen, of course. But, if it’s true that streaked goats and lambs were born, it certainly couldn’t have happened because their parents were looking at streaked tree branches as they mated. The editors of the New American Bible seem to be admitting that. Here’s what they say in a footnote:

  "Jacob's stratagem was based on the widespread notion among simple people that visual stimuli can have prenatal effects on the offspring of breeding animals."

  The Genesis writer’s explanation of the birth of streaked goats and lambs may have made perfect sense to him, for he could not have known anything about the science of genetics. However, if the writer was inspired by a god to record and explain this event, that god evidently either didn’t understand genetics, or else it didn’t care whether generations of Bible readers would have a childish notion of pre-natal influences. Either way, the Bible contains blatantly false teaching, and is therefore certainly not inerrant. If we cannot trust the Bible in one place, how do we know we can trust it in other places?

  Joseph F. Alward
  "Skeptical Views of Christianity and the Bible"
  http://members.aol.com/jalw/joseph_alward.html
• 

  Larsguy

  Hi there.

  This is interesting, but this could be "genetics" only on an advanced level. I'm just speculating here, but we know that certain animals do change their coloring to fit their environments, usually for camouflage. I've wondered white the white polar bears are that color if originally there had been no snow before the flood.

  So perhaps it does work out that herd animals will produce young of varying colors in later generations if they change their habitat and see certain colors when they do. Maybe this is a gentics phenomenon that Jacob knew about and triggered this response.

  What I'm suggesting is that say a pure white flock, likely herding on the desert were suddenly put into an environment of high-contrasting colors, then the flock would eventually adapt the coloring of that environment in order not to contrast with it too much for their own protection. That's just a theory but that would explain why polar bears are all white and brown bears are brown.

  One way we could test this is to put a flock of brown bears in the artic where it's all white and see if subsequent generations would turn pure white or not.

  So there might be something genetic to all of this after all that we haven't fully explored. But I think, generally, animals do tend to take on the colors of their environment and where the animal mates and the colors around them might affect some suppression of certain genetic strains and encourage others that determines the outcome.

  It could be similar to male and female sperm. The male sperm are thin-headed and swim fast. The female sperm are thicker headed and swim slow. Depending upon the acidic levels in the fallopian tubes and uterus, though, a more acidic environment favors one or the other. You can look this up in one of the old Awake! magazines, but I think it was explained that the higher acid content would kill off the male sperm because they were thin-headed, but the female sperm were slower dying because of being larger and thus more resistant to the acidic environment and thus would survive to fertilize an egg.

  On the other hand, if the environment was not so acidic, the male sperm, being faster swimmers, would increase the chance of being male.

  ON THE OTHER HAND, though, Jacob simply could have imagined that the stripped wood was the cause of the variations, when, in fact, the sap from the wood itself was the cause. Don't forget he actually put it in their drining troughs so they were exposed to the juices of those trees. It could be that some chemical elements in the juices caused some birth defects which showed up in the distorted coloring of the sheep or increased the chemical environment in the womb of the female sheep that favored the multi-colored animals. That is, maybe there is a difference in the sperm of white sheep versus colored sheep and that is affected by the uterus environment which can be altered by drugs found in these branches which caused this temporary high acidic or alkaline content in the blood of the animals and when they mated, somehow, this decreased the faster-swimming white sperm or something.

  I'm just speculating, trying to find a scientific explanation for the phenomenon.

  At any rate, only duplicating the test would determine this. We should go ask a German scientist if they have experimented with changing the coloring of animals with different chemicals. If so, then you have a possible partial answer.

  Thanks for the interesting discussion.

  But I find with most of these posts, especially yours, that it is not a limitation in the scriptures that is revealed but a limitation in the thinking ability of the person making the post.

  It's a scientific fact that no-so-smart-people, are far more confounded by science than their smarter counterparts. (smile)

  LG
• 

  JosephAlward

  Larsguy writes:

  But I find with most of these posts, especially yours, that it is not a limitation in the scriptures that is revealed but a limitation in the thinking ability of the person making the post.

  It's a scientific fact that no-so-smart-people, are far more confounded by science than their smarter counterparts. (smile)
  =============
  Alward responds:

  I'll repeat the most important part of my original post:

  "If the writer was inspired by a god to record and explain this event, that god evidently either didn’t understand genetics, or else it didn’t care whether generations of Bible readers would have a childish notion of pre-natal influences. Either way, the Bible contains blatantly false teaching, and is therefore certainly not inerrant."

  The notion that looking at striped sticks while mating can cause striped offspring to be born is preposterous, and not a single university biologist in this century has suggested such a thing could happen. If the Bible writer was inspired by a God which HAD to have known such an effect was not possible, why did God allow the writer to teach this false science? The answer is, I believe, that the writer must have been just one of those "not-so-smart" people you referred to.

  Your last comment suggests that you may count yourself among those "smarter counterparts" you referred to, and that you therefore have an advanced degree in science. If that's so, may I ask what degree you have and where you received it?

  Joseph F. Alward
  "Skeptical Views of Christianity and the Bible"
  http://members.aol.com/jalw/joseph_alward.html
• 

  pomegranate

  This bothers you Joseph??

  >>Did God Understand Genetics?<<

  The question should be, "Can God Control Genetics."

  Yes He can.

  Does that bother you Joseph?
• 

  JosephAlward

  In response to Pom's brief non-response to the apparently false genetics teaching in the Bible, I will repeat what I said in my previous post:

  If the writer was inspired by a god to record and explain this event, that god evidently either didn’t understand genetics, or else it didn’t care whether generations of Bible readers would have a childish notion of pre-natal influences. Either way, the Bible contains blatantly false teaching, and is therefore certainly not inerrant. If we cannot trust the Bible in one place, how do we know we can trust it in other places?

  Joseph F. Alward
  "Skeptical Views of Christianity and the Bible"
  http://members.aol.com/jalw/joseph_alward.html
• 

  pomegranate

  You also must have a problem with bringing the dead back to life, turning water into wine, making the lame walk and the blind see, the flood, sending fire from the sky on Sodom and Gomorah, creation of the heavens and the earth, Jonah being in the fish for three days, Moses parting the Red Sea, the ten plagues, etc etc...

  The Biblical things that Joseph must have for a list of the unbelievable is as endless as is God.

  The only proof that he has to offer that these things didn't happen is because he says so according to man made wisdom. That is certainly his perogative. As is mine to have my faith in God.

  No, I can't explain the MANY miraculous happenings in the Bible, such as the first one, the creation of heaven and earth. But just because I can't explain them, doesn't mean they didn't happen.

  I have answered some of your "contradictions" in the other threads to my understanding. No one will be able to explain the workings of miracles. That's where faith comes in.

  Sorry I can't help you.

  But then again, you probably aren't looking or needing any help. You're all set.
• 

  JosephAlward

  Pom is overlooking the most important point in my post. The writer of the story about Jacob and the prenatal influence of the striped sticks made zero effort to warn us that what was happening was truly extraordinary, that it was a miracle, and not something that the laws of nature normally permit. Why would the God Pom believes in allow millions of readers over the subsequent millennia be misled into holding a childlike notion of prenatal influences? The answer, I believe, is clear: He wouldn't. Therefore, the person who wrote that story was not guided by God, and if he wasn't guided by god, why should we believe that this this extraordinary event actually happened? The answer is, We should not. Thus, we conclude that the Bible is in error; if it's in error regarding Jacob and his goats and lambs, then could it not be in error just about anywhere?

  If Pom is going to respond to this post, I hope he will explain why he doesn't think this Bible story probably led generations of unsophisticated readers to hold a false beliefs and expectations regarding reproduction.

  Joseph F. Alward
  "Skeptical Views of Christianity and the Bible"
  http://members.aol.com/jalw/joseph_alward.html
• 

  pomegranate

  >>Pom is overlooking the most important point in my post. The writer of the story about Jacob and the prenatal influence of the striped sticks made zero effort to warn us that what was happening was truly extraordinary, that it was a miracle, and not something that the laws of nature normally permit.<<

  I don't think it takes a brain surgeon to understand that what happened was extraordinary. Besides, why would God have to warn us about a miraculous happening? I don't follow this train of thought at all. None of the Biblical miracles had a precursory warning stating "Do not try this at home, this is a miracle coming up."

  Do the laws of nature normally permit ANY of the miracles that the Bible records? No they don't. That's what makes a miracle a miracle, they go contrary to the known laws of nature and science. That is what I would expect from God...to be able to go against the physical laws that He Himself created and put into existence.

  >>Why would the God Pom believes in allow millions of readers over the subsequent millennia be misled into holding a childlike notion of prenatal influences?<<

  The only way anyone would be misled is if it didn't really happen. And as far as that goes, you are as powerless as I in either proving or disproving the matter.

  >>The answer, I believe, is clear: He wouldn't.<<

  That answer is based on your opinion of believing these events didn't happen. You weren't there to see if it is true or not. Your belief that it didn't happen is based on the same thing that I base my belief that it didn't happen. Faith. You put your faith in man, I put my faith in God.

  >>Therefore, the person who wrote that story was not guided by God, and if he wasn't guided by god, why should we believe that this this extraordinary event actually happened?<<

  Again, that is postulating and 100% assumption that it didn't happen of which you can neither prove or disprove.

  >>The answer is, We should not.<<

  Speak for yourself. YOU cannot, for you presume that it did not happen.

  >>Thus, we conclude that the Bible is in error;<<

  Again, thus YOU conclude by pure human speculation, because you were not witness or privy to the event, that the event didn't occur that the conclusion you have come to is correct. All based on the human intellect that if it seems miraculous, and it goes against the laws of physics, and you didn't see it for yourself, that it can't be true. That's great for you. Feel good about your faith, because that is all YOU are also going on.

  >>if it's in error regarding Jacob and his goats and lambs, then could it not be in error just about anywhere?<<

  Again, you have no way to prove it NOT happening. You were not there.

  >>If Pom is going to respond to this post, I hope he will explain why he doesn't think this Bible story probably led generations of unsophisticated readers to hold a false beliefs and expectations regarding reproduction.<<

  I think the Bible stories of miraclulous and extraordinary events are true for the EXACT same reason you believe them to be false.

  Faith. Without EITHER of us being there to witness ANYTHING the Bible says, means that one has to have the faith to believe it did or it didn't happen.

  I look at those miracles this way. If I am wrong, what do I have to lose? Absolutley nothing. Presently, I am happy and content with what I believe to the core.

  On the other hand, if Joseph is wrong, what does he have to lose? Whatever it is, Joseph obviously thinks it is of little value.
• 

  JosephAlward

  In a post from another contributor, the writer suggested that "where the animal mates and the colors around them might affect" the color of the offspring. This is ridiculous, of course.

  So, if modern man can believe that looking at a particular color can affect the color of an offspring, then couldn't the writer of the Jacob story likewise have believed such a thing? Not a single university biologist in the world believes that such a thing could happen, except perhaps by a miracle of God. The point I'm making is that God allowed his Bible writers to describe an event that seemingly happened naturally--not supernaturally. We know now that the event--if it occurred--was supernatural, not natural, and that the writer probably thought it was natural, and expected his readers to believe that it was natural, too. The editors of the New American Bible seem to be admitting that such beliefs were common in Old Testament times. Here’s what they say in a footnote:

  "Jacob's stratagem was based on the widespread notion among simple people that visual stimuli can have prenatal effects on the offspring of breeding animals."
  
  Now, if God was guiding the pen of this writer, then God would have had the writer make it clear to you and me and millions of other future readers that what was happening was supernatural, otherwise he would be allowing us to hold a false belief. If contributors in this forum can hold the false beliefs we're speaking of, then surely God would have known that the far less sophisticated readers in Old Testament times would have accepted the story at face value. Since the author gave no such indication the striped offspring were generated by supernatural means, we may take this as evidence that the author believed the event was natural; thus, the author wasn't guided by God, and we cannot trust what he has written.

  Joseph F. Alward
  "Skeptical Views of Christianity and the Bible"
  http://members.aol.com/jalw/joseph_alward.html
• 

  JosephAlward

  Pomegranate wrote,

  >>"I look at those miracles this way. If I am wrong, what do I have to lose? Absolutely nothing." look at those miracles this way. If I am wrong, what do I have to lose? Presently, I am happy and content with what I believe to the core.">>

  Happy? That's a criterion you use for believing? If it feels good, believe it?

  I'm going to go out on a limb here and guess that you're interested in your salvation, having a "life" after earthly death, so it SHOULD matter to you very much whether you're right or wrong in your beliefs in the miracles described in the Bible. If you're wrong about the miracles, then perhaps you're wrong about which steps you must take to be saved; if you misunderstand the message of the "miracles," perhaps you also misunderstand other parts of the Bible as well. Being right or wrong when it comes to the Bible is extremely important, isn't it?

  Is baptism necessary to be saved, or will faith in Jesus alone do it? Does one have to do good works to validate faith in Jesus, and only then be saved? How do you know? Are you just happy to pick a belief, and stick with it, or should you question your belief? Which is safer: Believing because it makes you "happy," or believing because you've carefully studied ALL of the evidence objectively and without preconceived notions? Can you afford to be wrong, even if you're happy?

  Joseph F. Alward
  "Skeptical Views of Christianity and the Bible"
  http://members.aol.com/jalw/joseph_alward.html