As I noted in my post Hermeneutics Resources; it is myopic to define hermeneutics solely in relation to the Bible as it is a method by which to accurately understand any text (“Biblical hermeneutics” is the specific branch).
There is a correlation to be drawn between the Bible, the Constitution of the USA and DNA: 1) They each contain information. 2) We seek to read and understand each.
3) The manner in which we approach each text determined that which we draw out of it, the conclusions to which we come.
The two aspect of hermeneutics upon which I wish to focus are exegesis and eisegesis aka isogesis. These refer to the manner in which we approach a text. Exegesis refers to coming to the text without prejudice (literally; without pre-judging it) and simply reading the text and allowing it to tell to us what it has to say, what the author intended. Eisegesis / isogesis refers to coming to the text with preconceived notions and then attempting to force the text to say what we want to hear.
The Bible, the Constitution and DNA are examples of texts to which some please come exegetically and some eisegetically / isogetically. The difference is that one person reads the Bible for what it is; allowing the author to state that which they are stating and taking it as it is intended and another person seeks to bend the text in their own image.
For example, Isaiah 43:10 reads,
You are My witnesses,” says the LORD, “And My servant whom I have chosen, that you may know and believe Me, and understand that I am He.
Before Me there was no God formed, nor shall there be after Me.
From this I conclude that the Bible is stating that God claims to be the one and only God and that not only are there no other gods but that there were never any other gods and will never be other gods. Moreover, I notice the emphatic emphasis; this is not merely something that is being stated (as if God ever “merely” states anything) but that God is stating that this is something that His witnesses, His servant, whom He personally chose, need to know, believe and understand.
From this text Mormons conclude that God, the God which the Bible reveals, is not the one and only God, that there were gods who existed before and more that will exist afterwards—including Mormons in good standing with their church. They shrug off such texts by claiming that what Isaiah was really doing was making such statements in order to dissuade the Jews from worshipping false gods, etc. (for an elucidation of various Mormon positions see the LDS section).
The Constitution is likewise read by some as a living document which is alive and flexible, able to be bent to the politicians and/or pop-cultural will de jour. Others see that the Constitution as a rigid foundation—I will not get into Constitutional issues here but leave it at that, the point is made.
Now to DNA. Upon reading the genetic code in fact, upon recognizing that there is a genetic code to be read; some consider whether any natural process is known to produce information, determine that there is not and thus conclude that life was intelligently designed. That is to say, they rightly conclude that the only known source of information is a mind.
Others recognize that there is a code, read the code and conclude that it is a coincidinc, a fortuitous chance chain of events, that timedidit, that matterdidit, that evolutiondidit, that lightning striking a pond did it or, these same concepts told as quaint Victorian Era tall tales hidden under the very thin veneer of a scientific theory (many of which are considered here and here).
Again, one person considers DNA and concludes from that which the information / code implies, that it was designed. This is why there are intelligent design proponents that are atheists, agnostics, Christians, Jews, etc. Others, consider DNA and conclude from their materialistic worldview that the evidence is flawed, misunderstood or misinterpreted. Such people have an odd way of going about dealing with problematic evidence; one would think that when evidence contradicts a theory the theory would be changed to match the evidence yet, some people prefer to maintain their flawed theory and instead, change, manipulate, manufacture, misinterpret or deny the evidence.
This is worldview adherence and I have chronicled very many examples of how this—and professional rivalries, adherence to preferred theories, etc.—plague the scientific endeavor—see Scientific Cenobites and Scientific Cenobites: some notes on skepticism.
Essentially, the one last desperate response from the materialists is that someday, oh someday—may thy kingless kingdom come—we will find a materialistic explanation. Well, this is obviously blind faith based on desperation and worldview adherence. Also, it makes evidence of intelligent design impossible since any evidence for it could be dismissed by stating someday.
Interpretation is very important in everything from discerning the meaning of a painting, to a text and to DNA’s information / code.
There are methods whereby to properly interpret anything and everything and we ought not abandon them in order to protect out preferred worldview.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
A plea: I have to pay for server usage and have made all content on this website free and always will. I support my family on one income and do research, writing, videos, etc. as a hobby. If you can even spare $1.00 as a donation, please do so: it may not seem like much but if each person reading this would do so, even every now and then, it would add up and really, really help. Here is my donate/paypal page.
Due to robo-spaming, I had to close the comment sections. However, you can comment on my Facebook page and/or on my Google+ page. You can also use the “Share / Save” button below this post.