Mike182
Flaming Queer
To what extent is the biblical idea about creation from Genesis 1 compatible with modern scientific theories of how the Universe, the Earth, and Mankind came into being?
In this essay, I am being asked to look at the details involved in both the biblical account of creation, and the scientific theories about origins of the universe and species. I intend to compare the processes involved in each, to see if science and religious belief are compatible or contradictory. For the scope of this essay, the scientific theories I will be looking at are the Big Bang theory and Modern Darwinism. Both of these theories have their merits, and are used in conjunction with each other together to give a plausible theory of how life as we know it came to be. The biblical creation story is the first story in the book of Genesis. It is an account of how God made the world and all the life within it in 6 days.
Scientists start by criticising Genesis as being totally wrong because it breaks the creation process down into 6 days, which is not enough time. The Big Bang theory and the evolution theories assume each part of the process to take a long period of time, however if we look at the translation of the Hebrew scriptures, the Hebrew word[FONT="][1][/FONT] translated as day has three distinctively different definitions depending upon their context. The Hebrew Word Yom (Day) can be used to describe a 12 hour period (from sun up to sun down), a 24 hour period (from sun down to sun down) or a long period of time with a definite beginning and end. As far as we know, it is doubtful that the universe and the world was created in six 24 hour periods, therefore I would suggest that in the context of Genesis, the latter definition of the word day is applied. If this interpretation is true, it renders the biggest objections science has to genesis as invalid.
The starting point for Genesis is that God created the heavens and the earth, meaning nothing could have existed before this except for God. The implication of this is that s/he created everything. Modern science has no theories about what could have existed before the universe. The Big Bang theory can only give an explanation of what may have occurred a miniscule fraction of a second after the Big Bang. The explosion from zero volume at zero time of a corpuscle of energy equivalent to the mass and radiation that now constitutes the Universe.[FONT="][2][/FONT] This quote is basically saying the universe went from a state of not existing, to a state of existing, in a very small amount of time. Basic laws of science state that nothing comes from nothing, and in the words of William Ockham, the simplest and most expected cause of an event is the most likely one. With a lack of any other explanation, the most likely explanation for the universe is God, and highlights the determination of science to prove the possibility that some form of deity does not exist.
This argument of what came before the universe is the main dividing factor between the creation story and the big bang, and neither would seem to hold a provable answer to this, however St Augustine of Hippo comments that the questions of what was God doing before he created the heavens and the Earth? is completely irrelevant to an eternal being, because the word before holds no meaning. Augustine says for there was no then when there was no time there was no time, therefore, when thou hadst not made anything, because thou hadst not made time itself. What this is basically saying is that God lives in all time (past present and future) at the same time, thus the idea of what god was doing before the universe was created is irrelevant, because to God there was no before, there just was. Science disagrees with this on two levels: first of which is the proven scientific law that nothing comes from nothing, and if there was nothing, there should still be nothing. The second of which is more philosophical in nature, and asks where such a being existed, if not in the universe? Genesis can provide no answer to these, and so leaves the religious arguments lacking in substance, however, it is important to point out that although science can show the holes in the religious view, science is still to produce an alternative argument.
Albert Einstein states that time is fundamentally bound to matter and gravity, without these two elements, the concept of time does not exist. The best scientific conclusion available to us is this, something must have created the energy that resulted in the big bang, something that as of yet is indefinable. Although the religious idea of a god is similar to this conclusion, in that God is an indefinable omnipotent force; the two are very different conclusions in nature. The difference between science and religion is that religion would have us believe that the creation was governed by an intelligent designer, known and defined to us as God. Science, however, suggests that it is absurd to conclude that this indefinable energy is a form of deity, which should be worshiped as a higher form of intellect.
The second verse in Genesis talks about the earth after the sudden expansion of the universe: now the earth was formless and empty, darkness was on the surface of the deep, and the spirit of God was hovering over the waters (genesis 1:2 NIV). Scientists are making the claim that the earth reached this stage 5 billion years ago, leaving 10 billion years between genesis 1:1&2. The biblical account of creation does not contradict this, because it does not state how much time passed between these two verses, because if days and hours didnt exist at this point, then time had no meaning. Therefore a gap is the best description we can give of the period of time between verses 1 and 2. It is only after this that the bible splits creation up into days.[FONT="][3][/FONT]
Day 1:
The first recorded words of God are let there be light. It is at this point that God created the cycle of day and night, so logically this was the first day, or (Yoma) period of time. If we follow the big bang theory, suns and stars would have been created before the planets, which is in agreement with Genesis.
Day 2: The separation of the waters:
Genesis claims that in Day two, god divided the waters. At this point in time during the Earths creation, the Earth would have been so hot; all the water would have been in the form of Vapour. As the earth cooled down over billions of years, the vapour would have started to condense and form large bodies of water. At this point Science is still in agreement with Genesis, leading us into day 3.
Day3. Dry land.
On this day in Genesis, the first dry land emerges, as a result of the waters gathering together. Scientifically this can be explained by plate tectonics. The earth was a prefect sphere of molten rock, but as it cooled, and formed an outer crust, the vapour also cooled and condensed. A violent reaction occurred when the crust of the earth was hit by the condensed water, causing it to become an irregular shape with ocean basins and continental land masses. Paul Davies talks about the properties of water in his fine tuning argument, saying that its specific heat maintains the constancy of the earths temperature. Even when water is frozen into ice, its maximum density means that it will float on the surface level, allowing life to exist underneath it. If the properties of water were different, say, if it was denser as ice, then life would never have formed on planet earth. This is all part of Paul Davies idea of God providing a tailor-made universe
Day three, however, also says that God commanded plants and trees to grow on the earth after the land had arisen, and that this happened before God put the stars in the sky. According to the big bang theory, and everything we know about vegetation, this would definitely not have happened in this order. Genesis says that the sun and the moon were created in day 4, after the growth of trees and plants on earth. This cannot be correct because the trees and the plants would have needed the sun to grow, however the sun and the stars could be there, giving off light, but it is not visible from the planets surface. As mentioned earlier, the sun and the stars would have been created before the earth.
Day4.
With a clear sky now the vapour has gone, the stars are clearly visible; Genesis says let them be for signs and for seasons, for the days and the years. Several other religions use the stars in this way, religions such as the Aztecs, Incas, Ancient Egyptians and the Ancient Romans. Genesis also claims that the Sun and the moon were created in this day which is in direct conflict with the big bang theory as they would have appeared at about the same time as the Earth, not after the earth had formed and grown vegetation. It is, however, possible that the writer of Genesis is writing from the perspective of someone from earth, and so this would be the first time the sun and moon were visible, and that they existed before being seen.
Day5.
In this day, Genesis shows that God created and blessed the birds and sea creatures, saying be fruitful and increase in number and fill the water in the seas, and let the birds increase the earth. Evolution theory shows that Amoebas were the first life on the planet; they lived in the sea, and were the simplest type of organism ever conceived.
Day6.
Humanity is created to govern and care for the earth and its animals. This implies that Humans were among the first species to walk the earth, which is denied by most evolutionists, through the evidence of fossils.
[FONT="][4][/FONT] The model for the origin of life based on evolution theories accepts that:
- life had evolved by naturalistic mechanistic processes
- the first life-form of a single organism arose from inanimate matter
- all life-forms originated from this simple organism
- there was a gradual development of increasingly complex life-forms
- there is unlimited variation in nature, and evolution is continuing
Science and Genesis have been shown to have disagreements if you take the Genesis account to be a literal narrative, because Genesis claims that the vegetation on Earth grew before the Sun was visible, which could not have happened, as the Sun is needed for plant and vegetation to grow. Instead, as the water vapour cooled, and the plate tectonics erupted forming land masses, the Land should have been completely barren until the vapours still in the atmosphere had cleared and the Sun was visible. Since Genesis was probably written 4000 years ago, when people had very little knowledge about the universe, it is surprising how close to modern scientific theories the story is with only the one discrepancy. Although the language is different, the basic ideas expressed in Genesis are the same as those found in science.
It is also possible that Genesis is not meant to be interpreted as any form of explanation of how God created the universe, but is merely an allegorical story with the message of God is the reason why we are here. Another allegorical story found in the Bible is Jesus parable of the lost son, there was no lost son, but the message behind the story of love all is apparent. In the same way, Genesis could be interpreted as God did not actually put stars in the sky, or split the waters into the heavens and the seas, but the whole story simply tells us that God was behind the creation, and is not intended to show how it was done. If this is true, we can use science to tell us what order the creation happened in, with no contradiction to religious belief.
Some would argue that the bible was inspired by God, but obviously written by man, and as such, is from a mans perspective. This would then lead into the argument that from a mans point of view, the clouds of vapour would have cleared before the sun and the stars were visible, leaving Genesis as relatively correct.
If we accept that the universe was created by a designer God, we should be able to find evidence for this, be it physical, theoretical or philosophical, and William Paley claims to do so. Paley argues that if he was walking along a beach, and he came upon a watch, he would know the watch had been designed (even with no prior knowledge of the watch) because its singular pieces are formed and put together with the purpose of telling the time of day, or in other words, the pieces work together perfectly for their intended purpose. If the pieces were shaped differently or ordered differently, it would not be able to do this. Paley then goes on to apply this principle to the universe, and we can see that if the planets had different masses, and thus had a different gravitational pull, the planets in our solar system would have bashed into each other a long time ago, and we would be dead. This is evidence in favour of an intelligent designer because our solar system, and presumably the universe, comprising of singular pieces, work together in the perfect balance to harbour and preserve life.
[FONT="][5][/FONT]Paul Davies also puts forward the fine tuning argument in relation to the actual big bang, and takes the properties of the Big Bang as the basis of an argument in favour of a creator God. He argues that if the properties involved were even slightly different, the universes expansion would have been brief and chaotic, with the universal energies caving back in on themselves within split seconds. The chances that these properties would be exactly as they should be is miniscule, and so ground for an arguments in favour of intelligent design. Scientists argue against this with the multiple expansion theory, or the idea that the universe expands, collapses, and expands again. Some scientists claim this to be a continuous process, as there is a lot of energy in the universe and energy cannot be destroyed. This would seem to refute the fine tuning argument because eventually, the energies involved would be of the right amount to allow the universe to form, and that universe is the one we are in now. The idea of multiple expansions however raises one fundamental question of its own, where did the first expansion come from? Or rather, what caused the first expansion? Science takes itself back to square one, as it still has no arguments or theories about the initial creating force of indefinable energy, other than the argument that it is illogical to assume this force to be a worship-worthy form of God.
Attempts to reconcile science and religion include David Griffins Process theology. Griffin writes that since God is not omnipotent, he did not create the universe. The universe is an uncreated process which includes the deity [3]. Griffin argues that God sparked off the creation process, but is bound by the laws of nature. This is in favour of reconciling Genesis and science because the bible is supposed to be written by Man, but the inspired word of God. If we take this to be correct, then God is trying to answer some of the questions earlier humanity is asking, like how did we come to be?
Many scientists criticise religious thinkers as creating a God of the Gaps, that is to say they think modern religious thinkers are just taking the scientifically proven theories, which they admit do have gaps in them, and filling those Gaps with the idea of God. From a scientific point of view, we see this happening over the argument of what caused the initial Big Bang? because religious thinkers simply place the idea of God into the equation, and show religious ignorance or unwillingness to explore other options.
In conclusion Genesis is reconcilable with science, providing Genesis is taken as an allegorical story. If we take a literal interpretation of Genesis then we can see through the usage of modern scientific theories that it is wrong, however as I have shown that the Hebrew word for Day could also mean period of time, a day by day (or period of time by period of time) creation process is not only a valid interpretation, but one that is mostly supported by scientific means.
Science and Religion do still disagree over the point of what was this creator energy? and neither currently holds a verifiable answer. Some theories like process theology are put forwards to try and bridge the gap, but are frequently rejected by the religious communities as undermining the very essence of god, and are also rejected by the scientific communities as wild speculation that is unsupported by theory or evidence, and confirming the God of the Gaps
I would have to conclude that if Genesis was interpreted in a certain way, it is reconcilable with science, however, as a Christian, I believe that through Christ we were freed from the rules, laws, and beliefs of most of the Old Testament, including the creation story. My final concluding point would be with Pascals wager, if we believe and are wrong, what have we lost? If we reject and are wrong, we loose a lot.
It is apparent though, that if we look through the bible, we can see verses of statement that are later supported by evidence. We can see Jesus arguing why certain things are good, and required for salvation, and why certain things are no longer required. Nowhere does Jesus confirm or recognise Genesis 1, and as such, belief in a 6 day creation is not a requirement for salvation.
Bibliography:
http://incolor.inebraska.com/stuart/imp-184a.htm (accessed 15th January, 2006)
Jordon, Lockyer and Tate: Philosophy of religion for A level. ISBN 0-7487-6760-601 Stanley Thornes ltd 2002
http://www.keyway.ca/htm2002/sevncrea.htm (accessed 20th January, 2006)
Julian Baggini, Philosophy, Key Themes. ISBN 0-333-96487-X published by Palgrave MacMillan, New York 2002
Horner and Westacott, Thinking through Philosophy, and introduction. ISBN 0-521-62657-9 Cambridge university Press 2000
[FONT="][1][/FONT] http://incolor.inebraska.com/stuart/imp-184a.htm
[FONT="][2][/FONT] http://www.origins.org/articles/milne_originuniverse.html
[FONT="][3][/FONT] http://www.keyway.ca/htm2002/sevncrea.htm
[FONT="][4][/FONT] Jordon, Lockyer and Tate, page 140
[FONT="][5][/FONT] Jordon, Lockyer and Tate, page 71
.