Aug. 16, 2006
is there a synthesis between Evolution and Genesis: Day 1
Posted in Life, the Universe, and Everything
Nance is taking me to task for a comment I made over at Scott's:
Trying to comfort the religious that science isn't any more valid than their ideas based on faith by saying being
convinced by scientific evidence is the same as taking things on faith. . . well, that's all very well if you want to be dismissive
of science and not hurt anyone's feelings about being religious.
But just telling me I am religious doesn't make it so.
I don't think I said either of these things... What I said was: Science and religion are two entirely different realms of inquiry;
science can't anwser religious questions and religion can't answer scientific
questions. Its like standing in an intersection. If I
am looking west, and you are looking south, we may be in the same place, but we aren't going to see the same things. My point, using
this analogy, is that it is foolish for either side to insist that his or her description of where they are is right and the
other person's is wrong without a willingness to expand one's view. I'm not comforting anyone; rather I am chiding both sides
for narrowness of viewpoint.
If you've been paying attention to my posts elsewhere, then you know that I do not believe the Bible to be the inerrent word of God
nor do I "take on faith" every teaching of any book or religious leader. I have, however, had several experiences that I
cannot logically discount that lead me to the conclusion that there is a power or intelligence greater than man, yet I am well aware
of the history of Gallileo and his two cosmological treatises. The Earth is not at the center of the universe.
On the other hand, I know enough about science to realize that the answers science provides are merely models of reality --
descriptions useful for predicting how 'things' will behave under certain conditions -- and not reality itself. And I've performed
enough experiements to realize that when parameters are pushed to extremes, the numbers almost never work the way the threory says
they will. They might be close, but they are always off by just a little bit. ( F = ma right? Not at astronomical distances
across a galaxy it doesn't -- unless we postulate dark matter. Or does the equasion change to
F= m a2/am>?)
Often when we try to resolve these little 'defects' we find the answer comes from a direction never expected. Science had been
struggling for years trying to resolve some issues with mass defects at the nuclear level and red shifts at the astronomical level
with no success. Along comes Einstein with the special and general theories of relativity and viola we end up with
E=mc2, light bending arround gravity wells, etc, and a whole new set of defects to resolve. Nobody had ever thought to hold the speed of light constant before. Nobody had considered that gravity might be able to curve space. Where did Einstein's inspiration come from? I suppose you could reduce it to a random neural firing sequence...
Science provides a plausable model of how the universe was created, how certain molecules came together in ways that were self-replicating, how those molecules mutated and were selected for various characteristics which made their populations expand and adapt. etc. But it is just a model. The Bible also has a model of how the universe came to be and how life on Earth came about. Lets compare the two, starting with Genesis 1:1-5, the first 'day':
Genesis 1:1 -
In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth
2. And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.
3 And God said, Let there be light and there was light.
4 And God saw the light, that it was good and God divided the light from the darkness.
5 And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day.
Science: This is the 'Big Bang.' Science tells us that before the beginning of the universe, all matter (mass and energy) in the universe was contained with in a quantum singularity -- a black hole? -- perhaps having literally no dimension. At some time t0, something triggered an explosion which expelled everything that is now our universe into emptiness.
Commentary: If we assume that Genesis was writen by a man (which science must accept, because it was written and there are no other natural agents available with the ability to write) then there are two things that need be considered. First, we need to consider the understanding of the man who wrote it. Second we need to consider the understanding of the intended audience. So let us assume that Genesis was written by a man after having witnessed the creation in a vision (for the religious) or halucination (for the sceptical). Jewish and Christian tradition places authorship with Moses about 4000 years ago. The archeological record indicates the possibility that the story may have come from Sumeria from an even earlier period. (The biblical Abraham was from Ur, a city in Sumeria. He paid tithes to a man named Melchezdek who is reported to be a great priest. So both of these are candidates. There are others. Logic is not capable of precisely determining the question.)
Question: Would a person living 4000 years ago even have terms in language that could describe the big bang? Vocabulary would have been limited to those things the writer was familiar with. Imagine watching a movie of the big bang then try to write what you see using only the vocabulary of a 10-year-old. In the Genesis account, we see "the spirit of God [moving] upon the face of [whatever was there before anything was there], and then acting as the causitive agent for the big bang. Science cannot see beyond t0, so it can offer nothing as hypothetical causitive agent.
Separating the light from the darkness is the separation of mass and energy, and possibly dark matter as the newly born universe begins to coalese. Our 'prophet' may have seen the beginnnings of planets in this vision, and realized that the lighted side was 'day' and the dark side was 'night.' And this without being associated with the 'day' of God or the observer.
Random thoughts: It has always intrigued me why Genesis uses the phrasology, "And the evening and the morning were the first day." The Hebrew 'Day' does begin at sundown, but it lasts until the following evening! The period from evening to morning is nighttime. If these visions came to our prophet in his sleep, the 'day' of creation could have lasted from evening to morning. But this is just a random curiousity.
The Hebrew word for 'God' in Gen 1:1 (the 4th word in the KJV Bible and 3rd in the Tora) is Elohim. This is a transgendered plural. Litteraly translated it means "gods and goddesses." Is this a "majestic" gramatical form, or does it describe a class of beings? Contrast this with the commandment of YHVH in Exodus 20.
If both Genesis and Exodus were writen by the same man (Moses) why does he switch back and forth between 'El', 'Eloah,' 'Elohim' and 'YHVH' (commonly LORD or Jehova)?
Comments
Aug. 16, 2006 - Untitled Comment
Posted by Anonymous
I know plenty of Christians that can spew out count-counterpoint verses to argue their beliefs. But when asking that same group why Cyrus is important to the preservation of their religion, or which tribes were lost and why, you get a glazed over look. One cannot ever understand the Bible without knowing the history. Your arguments illustrate that we need to study out the Bible in the context of the history (social, political, scientific, lingual, etc.) of that era. Cudos.
What Nance and others will find in further reading your blog is that the LDS view is much wider. It is unsettled in many respects - in a good way. It allows room to ponder. We are not bound to literal constraints. We believe in the Bible insomuch as it has been translated correctly. We can look to Plato's denial of creation ex nihilo and say - yes! that fits into our doctine. We can view his view of the perfection of man and say - yes! that too fits! We can search acrophyia for supporting truths instead of flatly rejecting their teachings. Wheras, these views are steadfastly denied by mainstream Christianity. Sadly, in Christian homeschooling there are plenty of books warning against the teachings of Socrates and Plato. History is westernized.
What is frightening is that there are children out there being raised on the literal word of the Bible, without the historical or varied scientific contexts needed. There are a growing number of people like David Barton emphasizing that the most important part of history is what our founding fathers believed in and built this nation upon. The rage is to have schools that are based on the principles of the Constitution, and words left by the founding fathers that are based on the Bible.
Our children are being taught to glorify of our founding forefathers instead of looking further back to who our forefathers "glorified" - the Greeks and the Romans.
If more time were spent looking back, the further forward we'd be able to look ahead. We indeed do know that Galileo wasn't wrong - and we know that he built upon ancient findings and ponderings. It is terribly sad, and a disservice to our youth to see the world through the literal interpretation of one book - even if that book contains the teachings of Salvation.
• Permanent Link
Aug. 17, 2006 - Untitled Comment
Posted by Anonymous
http://mythicjourneys.org/bigmyth/2_eng_myths.htm
http://members.aol.com/egyptart/crea.html#int
http://www.mythinglinks.org/ct~creation.html
The last one starts out this way:
Author's Note:
Stan Mulder writes [see below under "Multi-Cultural Collections..."]:
...Every culture has a story that tries to explain its human origins. This is simply a normal human phenomenon. The lucky cultures are the ones whose creation myths contain some humor and kindness....
A people's belief about the world's beginnings is usually called a creation myth, mythology, story, or tale by other peoples. It should be noted, however, that to the people involved, these are not myths or stories. They are real, not in a linear, literal, scientific sense, but nevertheless real, and part of the authentic plurality of humankind's truths. Thus, a more useful and respectful way to describe these "myths" is to call them "sacred narratives," especially when the people to whom they are sacred are still living and revering these stories.
*******
He's nicer than I am.
Here's another:
Creation Stories as a response to creationism
Bruce Railsback, Department of Geology, University of Georgia
Anyone in the U.S. who teaches about the geological or biological history of our planet is faced with students who have already concluded that creationism explains the history of the earth. One of the questions that perplexes me is how such students can conclude that their ethnic or religious group has the complete explanation of the origin of the earth and its life, when so many ethnic or religious groups have so many different accounts of those origins.
With that in mind, I've begun compiling short versions of these creation stories for use as readings in my Historical Geology class. The goal is to make students familiar with "origins" folklore from around the world and so to recognize their own inherited myths as folklore as well. For students who do not adhere to creationism, the readings may nonetheless expose them to different views of the relationship between humans and their environment, as the Hopi story below might suggest.
In days gone by, this page offered paper copies of the booklet. The entire thing is now on the Web at http://www.gly.uga.edu/railsback/CS/CSIndex.html. Feel free to use it as you see fit.
*************
Does this begin to communicate to you that even your possibly-more-expansive view of creation is still just another myth to me (or should I be all PC and call it a "sacred narrative?" Surely we can move beyond that nonsense. . .)?
I have a hard enough time trying to have a layman's understanding of actual current events in science. I don't see the intrigue in trying to figure out why or whether Moses wrote this word or that word when he meant some form of God.
Did you hear there may now be 12 planets? This is happening today and will change that whole "My Very Elegant Mother Just Served Us Nine Pizzas" mnemonic -- and then how will I ever remember?? :)
Nance
• Permanent Link
Aug. 17, 2006 - you're still missing the point...
Posted by twimmer
Which is not surprising since I haven't finished making it yet. Stay tuned.
But let me suggest that the difference between a "Creation Myth" or "Sacred Narrative" and a "Scientific Theory" depends more on how ardently one argues that it is immutable truth than it does on whether one calls oneself religious. Are you so locked into your views of athieism and evolution that you are not willing to consider other ideas, even as mere thought experiments? I pose the same question to the Creationists who insist that the universe was created in 144 hours; are you so entrenched that you cannot consider other possible interpretations of Genesis even as a mental exercise?
• Permanent Link
Aug. 17, 2006 - How about this...
Posted by twimmer
My Very Excellent Mother Continues to Just Serve Us Nine Cheese Pizzas Xtraordinaire?
Continues = Ceres (formerly the largest asteroid)
Cheese = Charon (essentially the same orbit as Pluto, so it can come first -- besides, Pluto likes to play inside Neptune's orbit occasionally.)
and Xtraordinaire = Xena (the real new girl in town.)
• Permanent Link
Aug. 17, 2006 - Untitled Comment
Posted by Anonymous
But let me suggest that the difference between a "Creation Myth" or "Sacred Narrative" and a "Scientific Theory" depends more on how ardently one argues that it is immutable truth than it does on whether one calls oneself religious.
*********
Let me suggest that that's not the difference at all.
The first are stories, taken on faith by some. The other is not.
And while religions may be about "immutable truths," scientific theories are not. They change and evolve according to evidence and understanding.
How "ardently" you or I may discuss any of this is irrelevant.
And now I have to go change the A/C filter so I'll catch part 2 of your post tomorrow.
Nance
• Permanent Link
Aug. 18, 2006 - I beg to differ...But we're getting closer!
Posted by twimmer
The first-- the creation story in Genesis -- may be just a story, taken on faith by some today, but it also represents a conclusion based on the best information available at the time. Which is what Evolution is today.
The second -- evolution -- is a conclusion (or set of them) based on the best information available today, but it is still just a story. And it is taken 'on faith' by many today. It is possible that some new piece of information may become available, and 100 years from now evolution may be just one more discarded creation myth.
Whatever do I mean when I say that evolution is "taken on faith" my many today? Just this: very few have actually taken the time to fully repeat the experiments, examine the data and verify the conclusions. Some scientist wrote a paper, a bunch of other scientists agreed with his conclusions, and the rest of us take their word for it. How is this different than, "Some religious leader wrote Genesis, some other religious leaders agreed on an interpretation of what he said, and everyone else just accepted it as true?" If one hasn't actually read the research/scripture, asked the critical questions, and confirmed the experimental results, one is taking (or rejecting) the conclusions on faith.
You are absolutely correct when you say that scientific theories are not about immutable truths. But that fact never stopped anyone from arguing that they are. Your athiest views appear to bias your thinking such that you reject anything that might be evidence of the existence of a deity. How is this different than a creationist's biases causing him or her to reject any information that might be evidence that the Bible is not the immutable word of God?
Remember, this discussion started with the question of whether 'science' was a 'religion.'
And now I've promised my wife that I'd do the dishes...
• Permanent Link
Aug. 21, 2006 - A few initial thoughts
Posted by Somerschool
Tad, in my current working metaphysics (CWM, hereafter), I argue that the "Big Bang" occurs on Day Two, not Day One.
• Permanent Link
Aug. 21, 2006 - More thoughts
Posted by Somerschool
I assume that Genesis 1:1-2:4 is one account of Creation, and that everything from Genesis 2:5 forward is a different account. In light of some other evidence (chiefly "Noah's Flood" bygeologists Ryan and Pitman), I'm persuaded that everything from Gen. 2:5 is an oral tradition handed down from an original human eyewitness of the scene. I don't think there could have been any human eyewitness to the entire story in Gen. 1, so I'm assuming that account came from a different source and needs to be interpreted differently.
I'm open to the possibility that "Elohim" in Gen. 1:1 means the heirarchy of angelic powers as opposed to Yahweh. This is the position J.R.R. Tolkien took in The Silmarillion. This gets into deep waters--we don't have a lot of hard evidence on what the angelic heirarchy is like, so I don't want to base any theology on something that speculative. I'm just saying the text leaves that possibility wide open, and we should acknowledge it with due humility.
• Permanent Link
Aug. 21, 2006 - About "evening and morning"
Posted by Somerschool
I am persuaded that there's a lot more to the phrase "evening and morning" than we know. Your notion of a sequence of dreams is intriguing. I don't think it's what really happened, but I think it's worth articulating as an alternative way understanding the exact same words.
Logically, the "evening and morning" are either a throwaway line that just happens to be repeated six times in a row because it sounds nice, or it means something specific that we don't agree on yet.
Can you imagine Jesus returning to rule on Earth, sitting down to answer all our questions, and starting right out in Genesis 1 by saying, "Well, here's your problem--you never noticed the 'evening and morning' bit, here!" It would be exquisitely just, after all our battles over science and religion, to discover that the answer was staring us in the face the whole time but we never noticed it.
• Permanent Link
