Aug. 22, 2006
Is There a Synthesis Between Evolution and Genesis: Day 7
Posted in Life, the Universe, and Everything
Before I rest from my labors, I’ve promised to draw some conclusions from this exercise. So lets recap what we’ve discussed:
First, I have managed to find a synthesis between the creation story in Genesis and modern scientific theories of the origin of the universe and evolution of life. In summary:
Day 1 is the big bang
Day 2 is the coalescing of matter from the plasma and proto matter of the big bang into water, atmosphere, and all of the other heavy elements. (Yes, I know, I didn’t quite explain it that way.) This is the beginnings of planets, just not Earth specifically.
Day 3 is the origin of photosynthetic life somewhere other than Earth and the concept of panspermia
Day 4 is the formation of the sun and the solar system
Day 5 is the beginnings of animate life in the seas and included the dinosaurs
Day 6 is the continued evolution of the higher life forms, culminating in man.
In order to reach this synthesis, I have had to do two things: First, I’ve had to discard many traditional interpretations of Genesis and re-read the account from a modern reference frame. Second, I’ve had to assume that the author of Genesis had access to knowledge available to us today but which we generally assume was not available at the time Genesis was written. Clearly, if the Bible were written by the hand of God, then the second premise would be reasonable, but we’ve also seen that, with this interpretation, the description is flawed and indicates that the author(s) had an incomplete understanding of some things described. That leads to a conclusion, under this set of presumptions, that the Book of Genesis was not written directly by God. (Our hypothesis was that perhaps a prophet saw these things in a vision and did his best to describe them, but there are other possibilities, not all of which are super-natural.)
Have I proven that this is the correct interpretation of Genesis? Absolutely not! This is but one of many possible interpretations. Even if we all agreed that this was the correct interpretation, we still would not have proof. I would need a lot more evidence to support the second assumption before we’d have the proof of that conclusion.
Have I proven that the literal six-day interpretation is not correct? Again the answer is absolutely not. Unless I can prove the second assumption, which I cannot do, there is no evidence that would impeach that interpretation or any other interpretation of Genesis or the interpretation of any other creation story.
Have I proven the big bang or evolution? No again. Even if I proved the first assumption, I could not use this interpretation to “prove” these scientific theories.
Have I proved, or even adduced any evidence, that God does or does not exist? Nope. Not even close.
All I’ve done is put a typically square peg into a typically round hole by changing the shape of both just a bit. And I’ve asked a question, that no one has yet tried to answer: What would it mean if this is the correct interpretation of the first chapter of Genesis? Assume that the second premise is correct, that the author of Genesis somehow knew about the big bang and about evolution, and wrote about it 4000 years ago. What would we think about it? What conclusions could we draw?
The only logically valid conclusion we could draw and prove is that … the author of Genesis knew about the big bang and about evolution and wrote about it 4000 years ago. Period. That’s all there is. It would become one of those ancient mysteries like the Inca roads that we just don’t know how came about. Any conclusion beyond this is pure speculation.
If we started with an assumed belief in deity, we could speculate that the author received the information by revelation, then use that speculation as evidence to support our preconception. If we started with an assumed belief that there is nothing super-natural, nothing that cannot be reduced to natural processes, then we would reject the assertion of revelation and would hypothesize that the ancient Hebrews (or whomever they stole the ideas from) had a science more advanced than we have previously believed. (You may have noticed that, logically, the only way to prove the second assumption is to prove the more advanced science or some other source of the information – extraterrestrials maybe(?), but this is an intellectual exercise to see where the line of question goes. Extra points to anyone that caught it though.)
Recall that I started this whole series from a post of Nance’s on Scott Somerville’s blog:
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.
One of the things I wanted to bring out through this is that we all have beliefs based on “faith.” When we board an airplane, we have faith that the pilot knows what he is doing, that the plane is mechanically able to fly, and that the plane will get us to our destination. If we didn’t have this faith, we’d never get on the airplane. Those of us who work for a living have faith that our employers will pay our wages on payday, or we’d go find other jobs. Choosing between an MD, a Chiropractor, a Naturopath, or a Witch Doctor is a matter of faith. The money we carry in our wallets is based on our faith in the government’s ability to back the currency with value. Putting money in the bank is an act of faith in the bank.
A belief that evolution explains the origin of life or that the big bang explains the origin of the universe requires faith in science’s ability to measure reality accurately and completely, and then to work backwards to a point where it all began. In the case of evolution, it requires believing that a lot of random events with extremely long odds happened. To believe in the big bang requires believing that all of the matter and energy in the universe was condensed together in a quantum singularity that occupied no space. These assumptions seem, or can seem, just as hard to accept as the assumption that our Genesis author received revelation or had advanced science or was visited by aliens. If we take nothing as authoritative – not science, not the Bible – then all of these ideas are preposterous.
Neither the Genesis story nor the theories of cosmo-genesis and evolution are reality. They are abstract models used to describe our perceptions of reality. They are all useful for solving certain problems. We take our models “on faith” because we believe the model will help us solve a problem we want to solve. Evolution works better for curing disease and breeding animals, and so on, but its pretty useless solving problems of eternal salvation. A six-dau creation model is pretty useless in preventing birth defects, but might have value in saving a soul. But when we take any model so seriously that we refuse to even consider an alternative model, we close our minds to solutions we can’t find with our cherished model.
Whether one believes in God or not, one should always be willing to ask the question “what if it’s the other way ‘round?” and be willing to explore the implications.
Comments
Aug. 23, 2006 - Untitled Comment
Posted by Anonymous
Hi Tad --
Just catching up here. Sorry, we had a busy day yesterday.
So I am being taken to task for not giving a “yes” or “no” answer? I thought we had a better thing going on here than that. Actually, I was just bragging on you to a friend!
I have really been giving your probing questions a lot of thought. And tried to give thoughtful responses.
When you ask if I am “willing to explore the implications” of some of your thinking and beliefs, I have tried to demonstrate what that is like for me. It’s not easy!
Not starting from a stance of belief in a higher power, I have still tried to think about the things that have come up here. Like Collins’ conversion.
In looking at that, I don’t throw caution to the wind and embrace his conversion as the real thing, as if God really was speaking to him through a waterfall.
I step back. I could just pooh-pooh the whole thing. Saying, “Of course, that’s ridiculous.” But I didn’t. I tried to be as open-minded as I am able.
I looked at the instance and said, “Hmmm, why did this happen? What are all the possible reasons this could have happened? And which of them makes the most sense?”
Say we narrow the waterfall experience down to two possibilities:
Either God sent Collins a sign and everything follows from that.
Or Collins was looking for a sign and his wonderful human mind was able to find one. And it comforted him and allowed him to proclaim his pre-existing belief and everything follows from that.
I read what he wrote about his experience and understood that the second possibility seemed likely, reasonable. You agreed, I think.
But, the follow-up question is then, “Couldn’t there ALSO have been a sign from God involved in all this, on top of Collins’ own mental state?”
My answer, obviously not satisfactory, is that another layer is not necessary to understand what is going on. Believers can add it, if they like, but there is a perfectly good explanation without any supernatural intervention.
So, my answers to things like this are not “yes” or “no” but, “OK, let’s consider what we know and see what the possible explanations are and see what makes sense and see if there is any need to look for a supernatural explanation?”
You mention all sorts of real-life situations that, you write, require “faith.” That’s another word like “theory.” There’s an everyday use, and then there’s the technical use. Theory versus scientific theory. Faith versus religious faith.
My faith in planes flying is not based on religious faith but in confidence that engineers who build planes know how to do it. My faith in my doctor is not based on his religion but in his medical training. I would not have similar faith in a witch doctor or, for instance, a lot of the hucksters we see selling things on TV. My faith in the bank is not a religious faith but is based on a, probably imperfect, understanding of how our financial system works. Etc.
If any of these things fail to work, we’d change to another way. If there wasn’t a sensible explanation for why a plane crashed, for instance. If the explanation we were handed was “God did it.” Or if there were any number of crashes with no explanation offered. Just a shoulder shrug and a mumble. No, my “faith” in flying would not persist. I need information and facts to continue believing it is a safe way to travel. My faith is fact-based.
Now, you lay out a game for us to play and ask us:
“What would it mean if this is the correct interpretation of the first chapter of Genesis? Assume that the second premise is correct, that the author of Genesis somehow knew about the big bang and about evolution, and wrote about it 4000 years ago. What would we think about it? What conclusions could we draw?”
And you answer:
“The only logically valid conclusion we could draw and prove is that … the author of Genesis knew about the big bang and about evolution and wrote about it 4000 years ago. Period. That’s all there is. It would become one of those ancient mysteries like the Inca roads that we just don’t know how came about. Any conclusion beyond this is pure speculation.”
Me? How do look at a question like that? How do I think about it?
I do that stepping back business -- looking for all the possible explanations before concluding whether or not the interpretation you have offered is correct.
And that’s what I have been trying to show in my responses. We can discuss anything -- say Collins or any other subject under the sun -- and pick an arbitrary starting point. Let’s say: “Collins waterfall really was a sign from God.” OK, then what? Let’s say: “Some version of a 6-day creation is the truth.” OK, now what?
It’s like asking people to work from a premise like: “All airplanes can fly anywhere safely without fuel.” Let’s start from that premise. OK, now what? Wow, travel is suddenly cheap! Worlds expand. Strangers meet all the time. Peace breaks out!
This assumption could lead anywhere.
But you’ve spent a lot of effort exploring each of the days in Genesis and seem to think the details matter. That whether or not the underlying assumption is convincing matters!
You wouldn’t ask us to work from some stupid assumption like my airplane-fuel idea. You’d want to know why that was a good assumption to work from. You’d “step back,” look at it carefully, analyze each detail. . . then decide if that’s a good starting assumption.
And that seems to be what this whole exercise has been about these past few days. You’ve laid out all sorts of information to help us decide if the assumption “that the author of Genesis had access to knowledge available to us today but which we generally assume was not available at the time Genesis was written” is a good place to start.
I am still unconvinced that this is a good place to start. So I’m still, perhaps stubbornly, but honestly, at the beginning of your “thought exercise.” I’m not to the point of: “Now what?”
Sorry if this isn’t the path you wanted this exercise to take. But I’m doing my best.
But let’s skip over what I feel comfortable with. Whew! Finally! :)
Let’s start from the assumption that your interpretation of Genesis is correct and 4,000 years ago, somehow, people knew more than evidence and history tell us.
Now what? :)
Nance
• Permanent Link
Aug. 23, 2006 - I posted my answer, what's yours?
Posted by Tad
I think you may have finally caught on to what I've been trying to say... I'm not sure, but I think so. Understanding what you feel comfortable with is part and parcel of the exercise. All of the detail work was to make it credible. Another way of saying "What I feel comfortable with" is to say "These are my pre-existing biases." Is it safe to assume that the reason you haven't previously expressed this view is because it was on the wrong side of your "comfort line?"
Since I tried to set up the "game" several times through the course of the seven posts, but it didn't quite connect with you until I bluntly asserted my conclusion that your views were biased, I have to ask whether your present comment is the result of post hoc rationalization. It doesn't really matter, but the thought occurs.
You are splitting hairs on your different definitions of "faith." A person who demonstrates religious faith does so either because someone told them it would do something for them or they have experienced that it does something for them. The difference is that with religious faith the mechanism by which the benefit comes is not known and not readily determinable like it is with an airplane or a bank. We have faith in airplanes not because we understand aerodynamics and trust the airline to hire a comptetant pilot, we trust airplanes because they work. One need not understand the mechanisms God uses to bless to see that He does. When religion ceases to deliver whatever it is that the faithful seek from it, they apostatize and go elsewhere for their needs. Christianity, in its many forms, has survived for 2000 years because it works. It delivers the goods, intangible though they may be.
Question: How much of an Olympic athlete's performance is the result of faith?
To argue a difference between a scientific theory and any other theory is similarly disingenous. Here are the definitions of theory:
1. a coherent group of general propositions used as principles of explanation for a class of phenomena: Einstein's theory of relativity.
2. a proposed explanation whose status is still conjectural, in contrast to well-established propositions that are regarded as reporting matters of actual fact.
3. Mathematics. a body of principles, theorems, or the like, belonging to one subject: number theory.
4. the branch of a science or art that deals with its principles or methods, as distinguished from its practice: music theory.
5. a particular conception or view of something to be done or of the method of doing it; a system of rules or principles.
6. contemplation or speculation.
7. guess or conjecture.
The only thing we can add with the adjective "scientific" is the idea that the theory is based on systematic investigation. In other words, we would not be surprised to find a "scientific" theory to have better data than a non-scientific theory, but not necessarily so. (Evolution is not an "exact" science, so that definition would not be germane to our discussion.) I suppose we could use the adjective "revelatory" for the Genesis account and "scientific" for evolution. Which one connotes greater reliability? It depends on your initial biases, doesn't it?
Finally, I want to once again point out that you are assuming what my beliefs are. Latter-day Saint theology holds that the six days of creation in Genesis describe the organization of previously existing but unorganized matter in to a world (Earth) after the fashion of other worlds similarly created, by multiple beings under the direction of Jehova (Jesus). This theology also holds that the story contained in Genesis (and other places) is largely symbolic, rather than litteral. Finally, LDS theology holds that the Bible has been mistranslated and corrupted by men over the centuries; with many "plain and precious truths" removed. I accept this view, especially the symbolic aspect of Genesis. I'm not willing to die on any creation story hill; the jury is out on the actual physical details.
• Permanent Link
Aug. 23, 2006 - Untitled Comment
Posted by Anonymous
I suppose we could use the adjective "revelatory" for the Genesis account and "scientific" for evolution. Which one connotes greater reliability? It depends on your initial biases, doesn't it?
*****************
I suppose it does. Which do you find convincing? Why? Etc. Perhaps it is impossible for any of us to completely set aside everything we think about the world around us when trying to choose between these two options.
So you've laid out 6 days of creation, with a 4,000-year-old man who knew more than we give him credit for, and some of that may be contrary to your standard Mormon teachings.
And you've asked me to suppose this is true, even though I don't personally find that setup convincing, and ask how this would change things in my view of the world?
What would it mean to me in my life? Well, it would change how I talk to my children about how the world works, for one thing. We homeschool, as you know, so I'd have to share this new knowledge with them. I'd have to tell my husband, too. He'd be skeptical.
I'm afraid we'd have to spend a lot of time back at the beginning of your thought exercise -- learning why this all suddenly makes sense when it never has before.
Say a few years from now, we've explored all the nuances of this new take on things, and come down on your side, what would change in our lives? Hmmmm. . .
Well, we'd still love each other. We'd still marvel at a rainbow and a beautiful moon -- we are suckers for standing in the front yard gawking. :)
We'd have to give up reading a lot of science news or watching history shows we now enjoy -- or read and watch with constant internal editing going on.
Maybe we'd start to rely on God when making important decisions. Asking for guidance or blessings or help during rough times. Up to this point, we have had to muddle through on our own.
Maybe it's not me you're really asking about. :) How would the world change if your scenario were true? Well, the Discovery Channel would have a lot of 'splaining to do! I suppose we'd have to rewrite books of all kinds. Change science classes. Etc.
Maybe our space explorations would be focused on finding the source of that 4,000-year-old man's information.
I confess, I am at a bit of a loss about what you want me to say would change. . . maybe, again, I do not understand what you are after.
Nance
• Permanent Link
Aug. 24, 2006 - Was that sarcasm or were you serious?
Posted by twimmer
Nance, you even quoted my answer to the question "what would it mean?" in an earlier post, so I know you read it. Would your beliefs really change that radically if there was a 4000 year old writing that was more accurate than we expect and we couldn't explain why? To me it would be just one more historical enigma. And that is part of my point. Ultimately, it would not prove anything other than its own truth, if truth is the right word here.
Have you ever read Eric Hoffer's The True Believer? Hoffer makes the point that when one has been deeply committed to a particular belief system (and here we could be talking about fanatical religion or politics) and becomes disillusioned, the majority will swing like a pendulum all the way to the opposite view. At least for a while.
To answer your question about which type of theory I find most convincing, neither. And either. It depends on what I want to do. I've been saying that either theory of the origin of the universe and life is nothing more than a model. A symbolic representation of reality for a particular point of view and a particular purpose. I make my living creating models like this; I program computers. So perhaps I can illustrate what I mean with an example.
I might be called upon to write any number of different programs that involve automobiles. One could be a game program, one could be a program for a dealer to track sales, another might be for engineers to design new cars with. The model for the game program would would have functionality and features that enabled the game program to draw a picture of the car and move it around in the game setting. These features would be useless to the dealership and the engineers designing the next Ford. The dealership would want cost and price information for each car and its options, the date the vehicle was received, and so on. Totally useless to the game and the engineers. And so on.
Religion, indeed all metaphysics, seeks to solve a different set of problems than science does. It needs a different model. I am not convinved that the six day Genesis model is the best model for religion to use, but it has certainly stood the test of time and passes the general acceptance test of three major theological "schools," if you will. (In addition to the Jewish and Christians, Islam also believes in Genesis. Instead of Isaac, they claim descendence from Abraham through Ishmael.) Perhaps we can discuss what the religious need for a creation story is another day.
• Permanent Link
Aug. 25, 2006 - Yes,
Posted by Anonymous
I do think that establishing that your 4,000-year-old man knew what we know now would lead to a radical change in our thinking. It would re-order so much. I didn't think we were talking about a few suggestions that maybe some of what he wrote could be interpreted to mean something.That's what we have now. But that we are supposing we know he knew.
The two suggestions I remember from your writing about how this man knew so much are both so extreme that they would effect how we think about a lot of things. If we really, really knew he was in the creation loop, since we have not discovered concrete proof of the man's knowledge so far, we're left with a belief in God to get him the knowledge or extraterrestrials. At this point, the spacemen are sounding more bizarre to me than the God. :)
And if God could do that, etc.
Or we could all start trying to contact ET more vigorously. :)
I have often wondered why religious believers need a model based on other-than-facts to get them through. I would love to hear your explanation! :)
Nance
• Permanent Link
