Evolution or Creation?
- Thread starter Dark[NSF]
- Start date
-
Two Factor Authentication is now available on BeyondUnreal Forums. To configure it, visit your Profile and look for the "Two Step Verification" option on the left side. We can send codes via email (may be slower) or you can set up any TOTP Authenticator app on your phone (Authy, Google Authenticator, etc) to deliver codes. It is highly recommended that you configure this to keep your account safe.
You know, I love when two debates, on two forums with different people end up being rather close and this will make a very good final statement, and will hopefully establish many of my previous arguments about creationist integrity and the kinds of debating tactics they employ.
For example
Now from another set of forums I visit, the natural-selection.org forums there was a similar debate going on with another creationist. After being presented with facts, science and evidence from Apos, as I did here to Renegade Retard, the creationist did the same thing Retard did, he made the "Oh I'm such an innocent victim" routine and:
Funny how entirely different individuals use the same arguments, strawmans and importantly, fail to answer any of the counter arguments presented against their ideas. The moment the other side presents actual facts, the poor creationist such as Renegade Retards resorts to falling back on false accusations of 'ad hominem' attacks (while using them himself of course) and then runs as fast as he can to avoid being exposed even further for the sham that he is.
Another creationist in trouble!
Ironically I didn't get into that one because I was too busy arguing with Retard and so forth. Amazing that the same process occured in two debates simultaneously.
Again, one just has to wonder if there IS truth behind my generalisation that creationists do not know accurate biology and that they use the same decietful tactics and lies. Renegade Retard certainly proves that for this forum, Pepe proves it for that forum.
You have someone who doesn't know the biology behind 'evolution' or biology in general actually like Renegade Retard for example, who then has scientific facts presented against their argument. They do not actually prove how any of those arguments are incorrect, instead ignoring the counter arguments completely (as Retard did to mine) and maintaining the original incorrect position (as Retard did to mine). Finally, when defeat is eminent and they've run out of any ability to debate, they claim the other side 'insulted' or otherwise belittled them (for answering their argument) and leave the thread.
I propose that is the mechanism where creationists like Retard declare their defeat.
For academic purposes, here is another example on yet another forum (a similar individual however, but again, the SAME creationist tactics).
Yet again, the same strawmans and 'victim' appeals with no counter arguments to the factual points presented.
Finally and again I only ask,
For example
Now from another set of forums I visit, the natural-selection.org forums there was a similar debate going on with another creationist. After being presented with facts, science and evidence from Apos, as I did here to Renegade Retard, the creationist did the same thing Retard did, he made the "Oh I'm such an innocent victim" routine and:
Funny how entirely different individuals use the same arguments, strawmans and importantly, fail to answer any of the counter arguments presented against their ideas. The moment the other side presents actual facts, the poor creationist such as Renegade Retards resorts to falling back on false accusations of 'ad hominem' attacks (while using them himself of course) and then runs as fast as he can to avoid being exposed even further for the sham that he is.
Another creationist in trouble!
Ironically I didn't get into that one because I was too busy arguing with Retard and so forth. Amazing that the same process occured in two debates simultaneously.
Again, one just has to wonder if there IS truth behind my generalisation that creationists do not know accurate biology and that they use the same decietful tactics and lies. Renegade Retard certainly proves that for this forum, Pepe proves it for that forum.
You have someone who doesn't know the biology behind 'evolution' or biology in general actually like Renegade Retard for example, who then has scientific facts presented against their argument. They do not actually prove how any of those arguments are incorrect, instead ignoring the counter arguments completely (as Retard did to mine) and maintaining the original incorrect position (as Retard did to mine). Finally, when defeat is eminent and they've run out of any ability to debate, they claim the other side 'insulted' or otherwise belittled them (for answering their argument) and leave the thread.
I propose that is the mechanism where creationists like Retard declare their defeat.
For academic purposes, here is another example on yet another forum (a similar individual however, but again, the SAME creationist tactics).
Yet again, the same strawmans and 'victim' appeals with no counter arguments to the factual points presented.
Finally and again I only ask,
Last edited:
![[SAS]Solid Snake](/data/avatars/s/30/30541.jpg?1424422840){kind=avatar}
Aegeri--
Your problem is you have all of these "facts" but you still don't have any proof. You found the shattered mirror, but you still can't put it back together.
In general, Creationists have no choice but to humbly bow out of discussion, because it's clear even from this thread, that even if they have a PhD in the field, they are viewed as sub-par and unintelligent DUE TO WHAT THEY BELIEVE rather than based on any factual evidence. Especially considering that there is undoubtedly someone out there with the same amount of book knowledge you have that is a creationist.
Your problem is you have all of these "facts" but you still don't have any proof. You found the shattered mirror, but you still can't put it back together.
In general, Creationists have no choice but to humbly bow out of discussion, because it's clear even from this thread, that even if they have a PhD in the field, they are viewed as sub-par and unintelligent DUE TO WHAT THEY BELIEVE rather than based on any factual evidence. Especially considering that there is undoubtedly someone out there with the same amount of book knowledge you have that is a creationist.
Last edited by a moderator:
I'd like to know what you think is proof. Really. Because I always thought that science was forming theories based on facts that were available. Nobody in this thread ever claimed to know everything. Only that the evolution theory fits the evidence that is available the best.Sir_Brizz said:
To use your metaphore: at least Aegeri is trying to fit the mirror back together. Maybe we can't fit the entire mirror back together right now, but at least we have the glue in hand. All you're doing is looking over our shoulders saying "I don't think that piece goes there" without helping with the glueing.
....
right, what where we talking about again
Metaphores are confusing 
Maybe I missed it, but who has a PhD in evolution in this thread? If I did miss it, sorry, but I didn't see anybody mention any PhD in this field....
The only reason creationists backed out of this thread is because they failed to provide valid arguments and were made aware of that. It's not our fault you take every little criticism seriously. Also nobody called anybody stupid or inferior in this thread. That's something that you made up because you got criticized on not providing any actual facts.
For us to take you seriously I would suggest making some good arguments on the subject instead of accusing us of arrogance or namecalling, just because we criticize you a little.
Just to make sure: NOBODY CALLED ANYONE STUPID. WE JUST SAID YOU DIDN'T PROVIDE ANY VALID ARGUMENTS. This is not the same, even though you seem to think it is.
Actually the two reasons I personally "backed out" were:
1). I was arguing creation philosophically, and Aegeri was arguing evolution scientifically, and we both realized it was going nowhere because the two perspectives are not mutually exclusive.
2). All the backbiting. And look, everyone's still doing it.
1). I was arguing creation philosophically, and Aegeri was arguing evolution scientifically, and we both realized it was going nowhere because the two perspectives are not mutually exclusive.
2). All the backbiting. And look, everyone's still doing it.
Dus, if we're going to get nitpicky, "proof" is technically evidence that compels the mind to consider the thing in question true. Proof is not an objective thing. Of there being evidence for evolution there is no argument, nor of their being more measurable evidence to support the theory of evolution than of creationism, at least what we've found so far.
Of Brizz himself being convinced of the validity of this evidence, regardless of his method of determining that, is highly subjective. For some, no amount of evidence will convince them of other than what they believe, because the evidence will never become proof, even if the alternatives be metaphysical, untestable or subjective. It's human nature to believe in something higher, and for some the idea of a godless world or one where our consciousness is a sheer act of dumb luck is not a comforting philosophy.
In less blah-blah, I appreciate your and Aegeri's efforts but people adamant about creation will only accept the validity of evolution on their own accord, in spite of whatever eloquent evidence you put forth. This will never happen for some people, and I'm starting to think Brizz is one of them.
edit: But honestly, if people are going to attempt to discuss the scientific validity of the theory of evolution, keep it objective and established, not philosophical. Science is not shades of grey. Science is the search for evidence of all physical things and the understanding of them in terms relating to other physical things. Religion does not fit into this discussion; it seeks to find the nature of perception, science the nature of what is perceived.
Also, if you're going to refute evidence, present some of your own instead of wading in largely-impertinent waters of philosophy. If you have no such evidence, then do not discuss it terms of evidence.
Of Brizz himself being convinced of the validity of this evidence, regardless of his method of determining that, is highly subjective. For some, no amount of evidence will convince them of other than what they believe, because the evidence will never become proof, even if the alternatives be metaphysical, untestable or subjective. It's human nature to believe in something higher, and for some the idea of a godless world or one where our consciousness is a sheer act of dumb luck is not a comforting philosophy.
In less blah-blah, I appreciate your and Aegeri's efforts but people adamant about creation will only accept the validity of evolution on their own accord, in spite of whatever eloquent evidence you put forth. This will never happen for some people, and I'm starting to think Brizz is one of them.
edit: But honestly, if people are going to attempt to discuss the scientific validity of the theory of evolution, keep it objective and established, not philosophical. Science is not shades of grey. Science is the search for evidence of all physical things and the understanding of them in terms relating to other physical things. Religion does not fit into this discussion; it seeks to find the nature of perception, science the nature of what is perceived.
Also, if you're going to refute evidence, present some of your own instead of wading in largely-impertinent waters of philosophy. If you have no such evidence, then do not discuss it terms of evidence.
Last edited by a moderator:
Sir_Brizz said:
I'll just say this:
To Osten Sacken dated May 20, 1864 (38), from Benjamin Dan Walsh, who was one of the first entomologists to argue for Darwins theory of evolution (because ultimately, insects were originally thought to provide the greatest challenge to Darwins ideas).
I have yet to encounter one, and I've been doing this for over 5 years now. I've encountered tons of creationists that know how to do this though:
Copy text from usual creationist website.
Present copied text as ones own argument.
Fail to defend argument when counters are presented.
Copy new text from creationist website.
Present copied text as ones own argument.
Fail to defend new argument when counters are presented.
Repeat until run out of copy and paste material, then accuse the other side of being unfair and exit the debate.
I suppose I should note that the local creationist around here at University actually has a Masters in Chemistry, from my University no less, and of course we had a discussion. He came out with the fact that evolution defies the second law of thermodynamics, so I asked him what said law was. He, a masters in chemistry, could not tell me what the law was unless he went to look it up (and thermodynamics is pretty damn important in Chemistry!). Me, who doesn't even do chemistry to any great degree, could tell you this straight away.
Further, when he sent me his 'evidence' for creationism I wasn't surprised to find the same kind of copied and pasted links from AiG and the usual suspects. In all the few times I have debated with him, he has never been able to present arguments or evidence against my points off his head- he always has to go back to repeating the same arguments that have nothing to do with what I point out against his ideas.
Of course, you again attempt to 'victimise' yourself when it is clear to everyone else that I never said anything of the sort to you in this thread. I don't regard anyone as stupid (unless they are deliberately dishonest to attempt to give validity to their position as Renegade Retard tried) just that I regard arguments that have not been researched and sufficiently supported by evidence as stupid. There is a difference in thinking a poorly supported argument is ridiculous and thinking the arguer is an idiot. One can indicate that a person doesn't know a lot about a certain field, but it in no ways indicates that they have a lower level of intelligence because of that.
Last edited:
Reading back I can see how what I said could have been misinterpreted. I was seriously asking his definition, so I could better understand where he was coming from. I wasn't trying to be nitpicky.MediocreTangerine said:
I agree
Why thank you, good sir.
Yup
Agreed
I have been involved in two separate discussions about evolution and the origin and nature of man, which have caused me to do some rather extensive research. What I found was, in my perspective, eye-opening and awe-inspiring. Now, to address an issue this complex requires one to explore a lot of different fields: theology, cosmology, astronomy, geology, biology, ecology… a lot of -ologies in which I have relied on those who are more well-versed than I.
I am publishing the results of what I have found thus far, but there are some very broad qualifiers, which I feel are crucial to be noted right away. I am neither a theologist nor a scientist, just someone who tries to understand the world around him. I do not consider my learning to be conclusive; neither do I consider the work of science to be complete (nor can it be until the very depths of the universe have been fully quantified, which is by all measures impossible), nor the work of interpreting the Bible to be firmly resolved. Using a finite form of communication to try and explore the infinite depths of God is equally insufficient to the task.
As such, I fully expect some of my understandings to change and grow over time, as science continues to test and explore newer models, and as theology continues to unravel the great mysteries of the Bible. Also, this may cause some of my statements to be oversimplified, or slightly divergent from the intended concept. Do not take this as an attempt to twist or deceive, but to try and convey a lot of information on a lot of complicated subjects (many of which I have only partial education in) within a small amount of space.
With that, let’s start by addressing some of the questions which shape this issue, many of which have been dangerously presupposed, and which seem to have formed a false dichotomy between two ancient principles: science and religion.
Q: Are acceptance of science and faith in God mutually exclusive values for Christians?
A: Far from it. Psalm 19 says:
The heavens declare the glory of God; the skies proclaim the work of his hands.
Day after day they pour forth speech; night after night they display knowledge.
There is no speech or language where their voice is not heard.
Their voice goes out into all the earth, their words to the ends of the world.
And Job declares:
But ask the animals, and they will teach you, or the birds of the air, and they will tell you;
or speak to the earth, and it will teach you, or let the fish of the sea inform you.
Which of all these does not know that the hand of the LORD has done this?
In his hand is the life of every creature and the breath of all mankind.
Nature, according to God, is our physical testament to His existence. To understand Nature is to know God better, and therefore the laws and principles of science should be our anchors for physical truth, just as the Bible is our anchor for spiritual truths.
Q: Do science and the Bible find themselves in utter contradiction?
A: Yes and no. By that I mean our interpretation of the text can cloud our understanding. To draw a scientific parallel, one could drop a feather and a bowling ball, note their differing rates of descent, and conclude that gravity is a variable rather than a constant. The obvious response to this simple analogy is that there is a confounding factor of wind resistance, which must be accounted for. Likewise, a proper interpretation of the Bible requires us to account for confounding factors, particularly contextual factors such as language and culture. If, as noted above, we assume that science dictates natural truths and the Bible dictates spiritual truths, then all things being equal, if there is a conflict between them, it is almost certainly a problem of interpretation. This may seem like a cop-out, but there is in fact historical precedent that is consistent with this philosophy. Galileo’s observations of the solar system confirmed a Copernican (heliocentric, or Sun-centered) model, which was met with furor by the Roman Catholic Church. Their interpretation of the Scripture demanded the earth be the center of the solar system, indeed, the universe, lest it somehow diminish the power of God or our unique place in the universe. 400 years later, no believer feels any less special living on a planet that orbits a star, because neither the redeeming work of Christ nor the creative work of God are affected by this simple scientific observation. In fact, as the Roman Catholics began to relinquish their stranglehold on the Bible (and thus, their followers), they founded several observatories to study the stars all the more. The Vatican Observatory remains one of the oldest observatories still in use today.
Q: Must scientists forego a belief in God to study nature?
A: Again, nothing could be further from the truth. Francis Bacon, founder of the Scientific Method, was a Christian, and believed the quest for truth would lead us directly back to God. He further writes: “It is true, that a little philosophy inclineth man's mind to atheism; but depth in philosophy bringeth men's minds about to religion.” Isaac Newton, principal architect of the laws of gravity, stated “This most beautiful system [The Universe] could only proceed from the dominion of an intelligent and powerful Being.” Galileo said, “I do not feel obliged to believe that the same God who has endowed us with sense, reason and intellect has intended us to forgo their use.”
Q: Is it a strict Biblical axiom that the universe was created in six calendar days?
A: Not in the least. We can go all the way back to the 1st century to address this question. Philo wrote: It is quite foolish to think that the world was created in six days or in a space of time at all… it would therefore be correct to say that the world was not made in time, but that time was formed by means of the world (i.e., our calculation of solar days -Ed.)… When, then, Moses says, “He finished His work on the sixth day,” we must understand him to be adducing not a quantity of days, but a perfect number, namely, six.” This mindset of age-days is verified by Irenaeus (2nd century), Clement of Alexandria (3rd century), Augustine’s Confessions, Basil of Caesarea (4th century), Ambrose of Milan, and so on. The bulk of Christian creeds (Heidelberg Catechism, Belgic Confession, Westminster Confession) do not specifically prescribe six calendar days, suggesting that it is NOT a strict tenet of Christianity through the ages.
Q: Where does the principle of six calendar days come from?
A: In antiquity (specifically, the 17th century), two British scholars, John Lightfoot and James Ussher, got into a tangle about establishing the exact date of the beginning of the universe (Lightfoot even went so far as to say it took place at 9am!). Their findings were based on a strict interpretation of six calendar creation days and Biblical genealogy, not allowing for any omissions, and not accounting for any external sources, even Hebrew scholarship. In modern times, it has arisen in an attempt to thwart the philosophical naturalism that arises from evolutionary theory.
Q: Does the Bible suggest humanity is only 6,000 years old?
A: No. There are gaps in the chronology when compared to other historical records, that space out the time more than a straight genealogy would suggest. When comparing biblical history with other histories such as Hebrew genealogy, and geological records like the breakup of the Bering Sea land bridge, it’s more likely that the Noah flood took place about 30,000 years ago, and Adam and Eve date back some tens of thousands of years before that. Specifically, most Hebrew estimates range from 10,000 to 60,000 years. So biblical history is generally consistent with the rise of modern man by archaeological standards.
Q: Does that suggest an inconsistency with the Biblical account of creation?
A: Not when you think about it logically. One very simple example: after God created Adam on the sixth day, he charged him with naming the animals. Think how many different kinds of animals are on the planet. Now try to think of a good name for all of them. In one day. There’s no indication that Adam was superhuman or that the earth’s rotation stopped for a few years (note the catastrophic consequences of screwing with physics), so if anything, the Scripture DEMANDS a less strict interpretation of the days of creation. Further, the usage of “day” (Hebrew “yom”) in Genesis 1 is distinctly different from pretty much every other usage. It does in fact refer to a 24-hour day/night cycle, but it also refers to the sunlit period of the day, and also to an undetermined frame of time (such as, “back in the day”). Obviously, we have many different uses for “day”, but these are referring specifically to uses of “yom” in the Scriptures. Also, the phrase “there was evening, and there was morning, one day” differs from other references to 24-hour cycles, most of which are phrased “morning to morning” or “evening to evening”. There is no comparative model in Scripture that demands “day” or even “evening and morning” must refer to a 24-hour period. And as I said, common sense will tell you that it these events take longer than 24 hours.
Q: Could the earth have been created in six calendar days?
A: Scientifically, no. The necessary forces would have obliterated the planet. Suspending the laws of physics would have had similarly disastrous consequences for the life that was established there on the 3rd, 5th and 6th days. Indeed, since plant life is introduced on day 3, and the sun and moon on day 4, then the plants would have perished.
Q: Is the earth 6,000 years old?
A: Scientifically, no. Without going into the numerous examples and proofs, the geology of the planet is too far developed, all of the radioactive isotopes with a half-life of up to 82 million years are completely gone from the earth (15 half-life cycles dictate an age of 1.2 billion years at a minimum), and the established age of the earth (4.5 billion years) is consistent with external measurements of the age of the solar system and, indeed, the universe.
Q: Couldn’t the earth have been drastically altered by the Flood?
A: Again, not without obliterating the planet. To flood the entire planet would require the landscape to be much lower than present, and the tectonics alone to form these mountains suddenly would have created enough energy to vaporize all water and life on the planet, at the very least. Plus, there are other dating methods, and again, there’s the question of consistency with the solar system et al.
Q: How is the age of the universe obtained?
A: Through several methods, including cosmic background radiation, stellar burning, and the testing of general relativity… not to mention the simple measurement of distance between distant stars and galaxies. This is the crux of the young-earth problem: arguments against local geology do not address the cosmological age of the universe, and arguments against astronomy do not address the geological age of the planet. Old-earth calculations, however, are consistent across several different scientific fields of study. Even if all of the above questions were somehow verifiable, none of them would explain galaxies so distant that the light from them takes a billion years to reach earth.
Q: Could the laws of cosmological physics have been altered? The speed of light, the speed of radioactive decay, etc?
A: Again, science says no. Our earthbound measurements of radioactive decay are consistent with the decay patterns of distant celestial bodies. Same with light speed as a constant. Given that some of the galaxies are billions of years old, we actually look backwards in time when we see their light on earth, and therefore can in fact verify these scientific principles as they existed billions of years ago. Also, given the formula E=mc^2, an increase in the speed of light would have unbalanced the equation, resulting in either much lower mass or, more likely, a much greater energy output, which would not be at all healthy for life as we know it.
Q: Could God have created the APPEARANCE of age in a young cosmos?
A: It’s conceivable… but why would He lie about the universe and tell us that nature reflects His character and glory? Besides, to fool us on the existence of distant galaxies, He would have had to create light particles in mid-flight at the moment of creation, which would have shown up in the redshift models we use to measure the ongoing expansion of the universe. To acknowledge the apparent age of the cosmos and maintain that the universe was created 6,000 years ago (which we’ve already established is a contrived date), requires a complete disconnect from physical reality and negates our capacity to exalt nature as a testament to God’s grand design of the universe.
Q: Does an old universe contradict the concept of creation?
A: Depends. Old models of the universe suggested that it has always existed. Sir Fred Hoyle hypothesized a “steady state” universe in which hydrogen was constantly being generated to maintain the present state of the universe. It was he who coined the term “Big Bang” as a mockery of the concept of a finite, predetermined point of origin for the universe. Similarly, Einstein’s theory of relativity predicted that the universe was expanding, and he modified his theory to accommodate a static universe. It was years before redshift models demonstrated the expansion of the universe and actually verified Einstein’s original formula. If anything, the idea of a created universe should be BOLSTERED by an established date and point of origin, which is why people such as Hoyle were so bitterly opposed to the concept.
Q: Does an old earth with the cyclical development of life mean there WAS death before Adam?
A: Yes and no. Plants sprang up and died and developed over time. Same with sea life and land animals, and so forth. This is actually very important for creation for several reasons. First, if microbiological life existed at the time, it’s nearly inconceivable that they could all have thrived, unharmed, until the moment of Original Sin, much less plants or animals. The second law of thermodynamics demonstrates that energy is constantly dispersing in the universe, which causes entropy. The end result of entropy is death, but it plays a vital role in the development of life on earth. Carnivores eat other animals because such animals require more energy to perform their function within the ecosystem. Even herbivores could not survive without killing plants. The entropy that breaks these natural foods into proteins is necessary for survival. The breakdown of foliage provides natural fertilizer for plants to grow. The breakdown of animals and other natural elements has led to petroleum and countless other resources that have allowed man to thrive. So billions of years of death has laid the groundwork for our arrival. The death that began with Adam was spiritual death. Humanity is unique on the planet for its spirituality. This spirituality manifests itself as conscience (awareness of right and wrong), yearning for purpose and hope, our desire to learn and discover, our ability to extrapolate both into the past and the future, and most importantly, our propensity for worship. This is the death that awaited mankind after Eden, a kind of death that only humanity can experience, and the only kind of death Jesus could vanquish with His sacrifice. Physical death is the law of this universe, and there is nothing in Scripture that countermands that. The life we are promised is in the eternal, and in the New Jerusalem.
Q: Does all this mean life purely is the result of biological evolution?
A: Not necessarily, for several reasons. Humans long have been linked to pre-human primates such as Neanderthal, but studies of mitochondrial DNA in Neanderthal specimens shows we are not descended from them at all. It was then postulated that our DNA is over 98% consistent with chimpanzees. That number has since been revised downward to 86%. By comparison, our DNA is about 75% consistent with nematode worms, which are on an entirely different phylum. What does any of this mean? Only that the picture is more complicated than it appears at first blush. I’m far from qualified to speak on biology, as life sciences are the branch I know the least about, but I don’t at all mind counterarguments to hypotheses such as irreducible complexity, because the more complex and intricate that even the simplest life form is demonstrated to be, the less feasible I find it that life is random and accidental.
So, having established my premises, that a young earth and a young universe are physically untenable, and that neither an old universe nor evolution as a general biological principle pose a threat to a creator God, to the unique nature of Man, or to the redeeming work of Christ, let’s take a brief look at the beginning of time.
I am publishing the results of what I have found thus far, but there are some very broad qualifiers, which I feel are crucial to be noted right away. I am neither a theologist nor a scientist, just someone who tries to understand the world around him. I do not consider my learning to be conclusive; neither do I consider the work of science to be complete (nor can it be until the very depths of the universe have been fully quantified, which is by all measures impossible), nor the work of interpreting the Bible to be firmly resolved. Using a finite form of communication to try and explore the infinite depths of God is equally insufficient to the task.
As such, I fully expect some of my understandings to change and grow over time, as science continues to test and explore newer models, and as theology continues to unravel the great mysteries of the Bible. Also, this may cause some of my statements to be oversimplified, or slightly divergent from the intended concept. Do not take this as an attempt to twist or deceive, but to try and convey a lot of information on a lot of complicated subjects (many of which I have only partial education in) within a small amount of space.
With that, let’s start by addressing some of the questions which shape this issue, many of which have been dangerously presupposed, and which seem to have formed a false dichotomy between two ancient principles: science and religion.
Q: Are acceptance of science and faith in God mutually exclusive values for Christians?
A: Far from it. Psalm 19 says:
The heavens declare the glory of God; the skies proclaim the work of his hands.
Day after day they pour forth speech; night after night they display knowledge.
There is no speech or language where their voice is not heard.
Their voice goes out into all the earth, their words to the ends of the world.
And Job declares:
But ask the animals, and they will teach you, or the birds of the air, and they will tell you;
or speak to the earth, and it will teach you, or let the fish of the sea inform you.
Which of all these does not know that the hand of the LORD has done this?
In his hand is the life of every creature and the breath of all mankind.
Nature, according to God, is our physical testament to His existence. To understand Nature is to know God better, and therefore the laws and principles of science should be our anchors for physical truth, just as the Bible is our anchor for spiritual truths.
Q: Do science and the Bible find themselves in utter contradiction?
A: Yes and no. By that I mean our interpretation of the text can cloud our understanding. To draw a scientific parallel, one could drop a feather and a bowling ball, note their differing rates of descent, and conclude that gravity is a variable rather than a constant. The obvious response to this simple analogy is that there is a confounding factor of wind resistance, which must be accounted for. Likewise, a proper interpretation of the Bible requires us to account for confounding factors, particularly contextual factors such as language and culture. If, as noted above, we assume that science dictates natural truths and the Bible dictates spiritual truths, then all things being equal, if there is a conflict between them, it is almost certainly a problem of interpretation. This may seem like a cop-out, but there is in fact historical precedent that is consistent with this philosophy. Galileo’s observations of the solar system confirmed a Copernican (heliocentric, or Sun-centered) model, which was met with furor by the Roman Catholic Church. Their interpretation of the Scripture demanded the earth be the center of the solar system, indeed, the universe, lest it somehow diminish the power of God or our unique place in the universe. 400 years later, no believer feels any less special living on a planet that orbits a star, because neither the redeeming work of Christ nor the creative work of God are affected by this simple scientific observation. In fact, as the Roman Catholics began to relinquish their stranglehold on the Bible (and thus, their followers), they founded several observatories to study the stars all the more. The Vatican Observatory remains one of the oldest observatories still in use today.
Q: Must scientists forego a belief in God to study nature?
A: Again, nothing could be further from the truth. Francis Bacon, founder of the Scientific Method, was a Christian, and believed the quest for truth would lead us directly back to God. He further writes: “It is true, that a little philosophy inclineth man's mind to atheism; but depth in philosophy bringeth men's minds about to religion.” Isaac Newton, principal architect of the laws of gravity, stated “This most beautiful system [The Universe] could only proceed from the dominion of an intelligent and powerful Being.” Galileo said, “I do not feel obliged to believe that the same God who has endowed us with sense, reason and intellect has intended us to forgo their use.”
Q: Is it a strict Biblical axiom that the universe was created in six calendar days?
A: Not in the least. We can go all the way back to the 1st century to address this question. Philo wrote: It is quite foolish to think that the world was created in six days or in a space of time at all… it would therefore be correct to say that the world was not made in time, but that time was formed by means of the world (i.e., our calculation of solar days -Ed.)… When, then, Moses says, “He finished His work on the sixth day,” we must understand him to be adducing not a quantity of days, but a perfect number, namely, six.” This mindset of age-days is verified by Irenaeus (2nd century), Clement of Alexandria (3rd century), Augustine’s Confessions, Basil of Caesarea (4th century), Ambrose of Milan, and so on. The bulk of Christian creeds (Heidelberg Catechism, Belgic Confession, Westminster Confession) do not specifically prescribe six calendar days, suggesting that it is NOT a strict tenet of Christianity through the ages.
Q: Where does the principle of six calendar days come from?
A: In antiquity (specifically, the 17th century), two British scholars, John Lightfoot and James Ussher, got into a tangle about establishing the exact date of the beginning of the universe (Lightfoot even went so far as to say it took place at 9am!). Their findings were based on a strict interpretation of six calendar creation days and Biblical genealogy, not allowing for any omissions, and not accounting for any external sources, even Hebrew scholarship. In modern times, it has arisen in an attempt to thwart the philosophical naturalism that arises from evolutionary theory.
Q: Does the Bible suggest humanity is only 6,000 years old?
A: No. There are gaps in the chronology when compared to other historical records, that space out the time more than a straight genealogy would suggest. When comparing biblical history with other histories such as Hebrew genealogy, and geological records like the breakup of the Bering Sea land bridge, it’s more likely that the Noah flood took place about 30,000 years ago, and Adam and Eve date back some tens of thousands of years before that. Specifically, most Hebrew estimates range from 10,000 to 60,000 years. So biblical history is generally consistent with the rise of modern man by archaeological standards.
Q: Does that suggest an inconsistency with the Biblical account of creation?
A: Not when you think about it logically. One very simple example: after God created Adam on the sixth day, he charged him with naming the animals. Think how many different kinds of animals are on the planet. Now try to think of a good name for all of them. In one day. There’s no indication that Adam was superhuman or that the earth’s rotation stopped for a few years (note the catastrophic consequences of screwing with physics), so if anything, the Scripture DEMANDS a less strict interpretation of the days of creation. Further, the usage of “day” (Hebrew “yom”) in Genesis 1 is distinctly different from pretty much every other usage. It does in fact refer to a 24-hour day/night cycle, but it also refers to the sunlit period of the day, and also to an undetermined frame of time (such as, “back in the day”). Obviously, we have many different uses for “day”, but these are referring specifically to uses of “yom” in the Scriptures. Also, the phrase “there was evening, and there was morning, one day” differs from other references to 24-hour cycles, most of which are phrased “morning to morning” or “evening to evening”. There is no comparative model in Scripture that demands “day” or even “evening and morning” must refer to a 24-hour period. And as I said, common sense will tell you that it these events take longer than 24 hours.
Q: Could the earth have been created in six calendar days?
A: Scientifically, no. The necessary forces would have obliterated the planet. Suspending the laws of physics would have had similarly disastrous consequences for the life that was established there on the 3rd, 5th and 6th days. Indeed, since plant life is introduced on day 3, and the sun and moon on day 4, then the plants would have perished.
Q: Is the earth 6,000 years old?
A: Scientifically, no. Without going into the numerous examples and proofs, the geology of the planet is too far developed, all of the radioactive isotopes with a half-life of up to 82 million years are completely gone from the earth (15 half-life cycles dictate an age of 1.2 billion years at a minimum), and the established age of the earth (4.5 billion years) is consistent with external measurements of the age of the solar system and, indeed, the universe.
Q: Couldn’t the earth have been drastically altered by the Flood?
A: Again, not without obliterating the planet. To flood the entire planet would require the landscape to be much lower than present, and the tectonics alone to form these mountains suddenly would have created enough energy to vaporize all water and life on the planet, at the very least. Plus, there are other dating methods, and again, there’s the question of consistency with the solar system et al.
Q: How is the age of the universe obtained?
A: Through several methods, including cosmic background radiation, stellar burning, and the testing of general relativity… not to mention the simple measurement of distance between distant stars and galaxies. This is the crux of the young-earth problem: arguments against local geology do not address the cosmological age of the universe, and arguments against astronomy do not address the geological age of the planet. Old-earth calculations, however, are consistent across several different scientific fields of study. Even if all of the above questions were somehow verifiable, none of them would explain galaxies so distant that the light from them takes a billion years to reach earth.
Q: Could the laws of cosmological physics have been altered? The speed of light, the speed of radioactive decay, etc?
A: Again, science says no. Our earthbound measurements of radioactive decay are consistent with the decay patterns of distant celestial bodies. Same with light speed as a constant. Given that some of the galaxies are billions of years old, we actually look backwards in time when we see their light on earth, and therefore can in fact verify these scientific principles as they existed billions of years ago. Also, given the formula E=mc^2, an increase in the speed of light would have unbalanced the equation, resulting in either much lower mass or, more likely, a much greater energy output, which would not be at all healthy for life as we know it.
Q: Could God have created the APPEARANCE of age in a young cosmos?
A: It’s conceivable… but why would He lie about the universe and tell us that nature reflects His character and glory? Besides, to fool us on the existence of distant galaxies, He would have had to create light particles in mid-flight at the moment of creation, which would have shown up in the redshift models we use to measure the ongoing expansion of the universe. To acknowledge the apparent age of the cosmos and maintain that the universe was created 6,000 years ago (which we’ve already established is a contrived date), requires a complete disconnect from physical reality and negates our capacity to exalt nature as a testament to God’s grand design of the universe.
Q: Does an old universe contradict the concept of creation?
A: Depends. Old models of the universe suggested that it has always existed. Sir Fred Hoyle hypothesized a “steady state” universe in which hydrogen was constantly being generated to maintain the present state of the universe. It was he who coined the term “Big Bang” as a mockery of the concept of a finite, predetermined point of origin for the universe. Similarly, Einstein’s theory of relativity predicted that the universe was expanding, and he modified his theory to accommodate a static universe. It was years before redshift models demonstrated the expansion of the universe and actually verified Einstein’s original formula. If anything, the idea of a created universe should be BOLSTERED by an established date and point of origin, which is why people such as Hoyle were so bitterly opposed to the concept.
Q: Does an old earth with the cyclical development of life mean there WAS death before Adam?
A: Yes and no. Plants sprang up and died and developed over time. Same with sea life and land animals, and so forth. This is actually very important for creation for several reasons. First, if microbiological life existed at the time, it’s nearly inconceivable that they could all have thrived, unharmed, until the moment of Original Sin, much less plants or animals. The second law of thermodynamics demonstrates that energy is constantly dispersing in the universe, which causes entropy. The end result of entropy is death, but it plays a vital role in the development of life on earth. Carnivores eat other animals because such animals require more energy to perform their function within the ecosystem. Even herbivores could not survive without killing plants. The entropy that breaks these natural foods into proteins is necessary for survival. The breakdown of foliage provides natural fertilizer for plants to grow. The breakdown of animals and other natural elements has led to petroleum and countless other resources that have allowed man to thrive. So billions of years of death has laid the groundwork for our arrival. The death that began with Adam was spiritual death. Humanity is unique on the planet for its spirituality. This spirituality manifests itself as conscience (awareness of right and wrong), yearning for purpose and hope, our desire to learn and discover, our ability to extrapolate both into the past and the future, and most importantly, our propensity for worship. This is the death that awaited mankind after Eden, a kind of death that only humanity can experience, and the only kind of death Jesus could vanquish with His sacrifice. Physical death is the law of this universe, and there is nothing in Scripture that countermands that. The life we are promised is in the eternal, and in the New Jerusalem.
Q: Does all this mean life purely is the result of biological evolution?
A: Not necessarily, for several reasons. Humans long have been linked to pre-human primates such as Neanderthal, but studies of mitochondrial DNA in Neanderthal specimens shows we are not descended from them at all. It was then postulated that our DNA is over 98% consistent with chimpanzees. That number has since been revised downward to 86%. By comparison, our DNA is about 75% consistent with nematode worms, which are on an entirely different phylum. What does any of this mean? Only that the picture is more complicated than it appears at first blush. I’m far from qualified to speak on biology, as life sciences are the branch I know the least about, but I don’t at all mind counterarguments to hypotheses such as irreducible complexity, because the more complex and intricate that even the simplest life form is demonstrated to be, the less feasible I find it that life is random and accidental.
So, having established my premises, that a young earth and a young universe are physically untenable, and that neither an old universe nor evolution as a general biological principle pose a threat to a creator God, to the unique nature of Man, or to the redeeming work of Christ, let’s take a brief look at the beginning of time.
Last edited:
Q: Is life an accident?
A: It is impossible to calculate all of the factors that contribute to human life on this planet. The circumstances do seem awfully convenient, however. Some factors, like the level and variability of spot production on the surface of the sun, or the abundance of certain metals (anything not H or He) in the earth’s crust, are not so difficult to meet. Others, like the presence and location of gas giants in the solar system, or radiometric decay in the earth’s core causing a heat flow from its mantle, would not occur as frequently in our universe. The very timing of the Big Bang itself is rather fortuitous: if it expanded too quickly, the elements would disperse too fast to coalesce into stars and galaxies; too slowly and it would likely collapse back in on itself before any stars could form.
All together, there are at least 322 critical cosmological parameters for the universe to produce a body capable of supporting life. If any of these events or physical properties had unfolded differently, life could not exist on this planet. Accounting for dependency and longevity factors, it is estimated that the probability of even one such planet existing in the known universe is one in 10^282. If I am forced to concede that this is not utterly impossible given the time frame (even though timing itself is a critical factor), then I shall. After all, it is possible for you to flip a coin two times or even three and come up heads each time (and giving 50/50 odds per instance is better than the universe will give you). So give that a try every day until the coin comes up tails, then try again the next day. When the coin comes up heads a million trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion consecutive times, please call me.
Q: What about the creation account in Genesis 1?
A: Well, let’s take a look at the actual description of events, ignoring for the moment the mythopoeic language of “evening and morning, X day”:
In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.
Now the earth was formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters.
And God said, "Let there be light," and there was light.
God saw that the light was good, and He separated the light from the darkness. God called the light "day," and the darkness he called "night.”
And God said, "Let there be an expanse between the waters to separate water from water." So God made the expanse and separated the water under the expanse from the water above it. And it was so. God called the expanse "sky."
And God said, "Let the water under the sky be gathered to one place, and let dry ground appear." And it was so. God called the dry ground "land," and the gathered waters he called "seas."
Then God said, "Let the land produce vegetation: seed-bearing plants and trees on the land that bear fruit with seed in it, according to their various kinds." And it was so.
The land produced vegetation: plants bearing seed according to their kinds and trees bearing fruit with seed in it according to their kinds. And God saw that it was good.
And God said, "Let there be lights in the expanse of the sky to separate the day from the night, and let them serve as signs to mark seasons and days and years, and let them be lights in the expanse of the sky to give light on the earth." And it was so. God made two great lights-the greater light to govern the day and the lesser light to govern the night. He also made the stars. God set them in the expanse of the sky to give light on the earth, to govern the day and the night, and to separate light from darkness.
And God said, "Let the water teem with living creatures, and let birds fly above the earth across the expanse of the sky." So God created the great creatures of the sea and every living and moving thing with which the water teems, according to their kinds, and every winged bird according to its kind.
And God said, "Let the land produce living creatures according to their kinds: livestock, creatures that move along the ground, and wild animals, each according to its kind." And it was so.
Then God said, "Let us make man in our image, in our likeness, and let them rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air, over the livestock, over all the earth, and over all the creatures that move along the ground." So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them.
So according to the Biblical account of creation: first there was nothing, then there was light, then darkness separated from the light, then the waters separated from the sky, then dry land appeared, then plants, then the sun moon and stars appeared in the sky, then sea creatures, then winged creatures, then land animals, and finally humankind.
Now let’s look at a cosmological timeline for earth. Note that there are numerous assumptions and simplifications in the interest of brevity. Also, some of the information is based on theoretical models:
14 billion years ago, the universe did not exist. There was only a singularity, a point in null space that contained the sum of our space-time universe. At the beginning of time as we know it, this singularity erupted outward, forming the universe as we know it. For the first 300,000 years of this outward expansion, the universe was bombarded with photons, which had the dual effect of preventing hydrogen atoms from forming, and scattering light, such that it was only after this 300,000 year period that the universe became transparent to light. Over time, elements combined to form heavier elements, our galaxies and solar systems coalesced, and some 4.5 billion years ago, the earth formed within our own solar system. At first it was unable to retain any sort of atmosphere, but over time, debris from collisions (one of which is thought to have been the genesis of our moon), combined with outgassing of carbon dioxide and water vapor from within the earth, allowed a canopy to form over our planet and finally trap heat within the atmosphere. The oceans finally condensed and our permanent water cycle was established. About 1 billion years ago, Rodinia was formed, the collective result of millions of years of plate tectonics and essentially a supercontinent that embodies the continents on which we live today. About 650 million years ago, at the beginning of the Paleozoic era, scientists believe the first land plants appeared on earth. The oxygenation of the atmosphere and the clearing of the stellar debris from our atmosphere melts away the greenhouse canopy and for the first time, exposing those living on earth to the sun, moon and stars for the first time. Conveniently, the sun is no longer too faint to adequately warm the earth and sustain the life that flourished there for the last 3 billion years. Some 500 million years ago, the Cambrian Explosion brought about a teeming wealth of sea life. Winged insects appear about 360 million years ago, and soon after that, terrestrial animals. Modern humans, of course, have only been around some 50,000 years or so, which is where our story ends.
So according to this theoretical model, first there was nothing, then there was light, then darkness separated from the light, then the waters separated from the sky, then dry land appeared, then plants, then the sun moon and stars appeared in the sky, then sea creatures, then winged creatures, then land animals, and finally humankind.
Even allowing that there is still a lot of study going on regarding pre-Cambrian life, and allowing that I’m assembling something of an ad hoc timeline, there is still a remarkable degree of similarity between the cosmological timeline for creation, and the biblical account, written thousands of years before we even conceived such disciplines as geology, evolutionary biology or modern cosmology.
Q: Don’t all religions and mythologies have creation stories?
A: Not all, but many. To make a claim of corroboration between scientific findings and Biblical interpretation, however, requires us to look at a few of them more closely:
First of all, most Eastern religions and philosophies believe in a cyclical universe, experiencing the same processes of life, death and rebirth that humans and animals do. This is not consistent with a Big Bang universe which has both a finite beginning and a finite end. Some Hindu also believe that every 300 million years or so (manvantara), the earth is submerged in water for a period of 1.7 million years (Sandhi Kala).
In some aspects of Chinese mythology, the universe was a formless chaos that coalesced into a “cosmic egg” over a period of 18,000 years. When yin and yang achieved balance, PanGu emerged and carved yin and yang into the earth and sky. He then pushes up the sky for 18,000 years, and every day the sky gets 10 feet higher, and the earth 10 feet wider. By such calculations, the universe would be about 40,000 years old, the earth 12,000 miles wide, and the sky 12,000 miles high. Tao references the yin/yang philosophy without the personification of PanGu.
According to Japanese mythology, gods summoned the divine beings Izanagi and Izanami into existence, who formed an island from the water, onto which they descended and gave birth to other islands and other deities. Izanami dies in childbirth, descends to the land of Yomi and becomes death. Izanagi searched for her, was chased out of Yomi and shed various clothespieces which became grapes, bamboo, etc. As he escaped Yomi and cleaned himself in the sea, his adornments became other gods; his eyes in particular became the sun (Amaterasu) and the moon (Tsukiyomi).
In Norse mythology, the earth is a flat disc, with Asgard at its center, and to reach it you must cross the bifrost bridge (rainbow). At the dawn of creation were a world of fire and a world of ice, and in the gap between them, a cow and a giant were born. They forged the gods, who killed Ymir and shaped the world from his body.
According to Zoroastrianism, Ahura Mazda created 16 lands, one by one, such that each would be delightful to its people. As he finished each one, Angra Mainyu applied a counter-creation, introducing plague and sin of various kinds.
In Babylonian/Assyrian mythology, Marduk carves the monster Tiamut into the earth and sky.
Roman mythology focuses mostly on the establishment of Rome, and assimilated many gods from Greek mythology. In both cases, gods represent the sun, moon, seas, and so forth. Greek mythology does suggest the world was created by gods, but who exactly is responsible varies from Homer to Hesiod to Aristophones, etc.
In Sumerian mythology, Nammu gives birth to An and Ki (heaven and earth), and again, gods beget gods which represent the sun, moon, wind, seas, etc.
So across a broad range of mythologies, religions and philosophies, we have creation accounts that do not conform at all to the scientific model. Some do not even attempt to suggest how the world began. Many stellar bodies, like the sun, moon and stars, and natural phenomena like seas and winds, are gods or controlled by gods. By contrast, the Bible treats natural phenomena as simply a part of nature. The sun and moon and stars are not gods, but genuine celestial bodies. So not only does the Bible appear to give a fair if oversimplified account of how the earth was formed, consistent with the scientific model, but as far as I can tell, it’s the only one that even comes close.
Again, this is far from the full account of human study on all these different subjects, and it’s only a small portion of what I have gathered over the last couple weeks, so this is by no means a definitive thesis on the matter. But it is an overview of what I have found, and a fair summary of my conclusions. I hope it’s enough to promote more meaningful dialogue, where we listen as much as we speak, and remain open to a broader range of ideas than the false dichotomy of either amoral atheist scientists or brain-dead Bible-thumping conspiracy-theorists.
A: It is impossible to calculate all of the factors that contribute to human life on this planet. The circumstances do seem awfully convenient, however. Some factors, like the level and variability of spot production on the surface of the sun, or the abundance of certain metals (anything not H or He) in the earth’s crust, are not so difficult to meet. Others, like the presence and location of gas giants in the solar system, or radiometric decay in the earth’s core causing a heat flow from its mantle, would not occur as frequently in our universe. The very timing of the Big Bang itself is rather fortuitous: if it expanded too quickly, the elements would disperse too fast to coalesce into stars and galaxies; too slowly and it would likely collapse back in on itself before any stars could form.
All together, there are at least 322 critical cosmological parameters for the universe to produce a body capable of supporting life. If any of these events or physical properties had unfolded differently, life could not exist on this planet. Accounting for dependency and longevity factors, it is estimated that the probability of even one such planet existing in the known universe is one in 10^282. If I am forced to concede that this is not utterly impossible given the time frame (even though timing itself is a critical factor), then I shall. After all, it is possible for you to flip a coin two times or even three and come up heads each time (and giving 50/50 odds per instance is better than the universe will give you). So give that a try every day until the coin comes up tails, then try again the next day. When the coin comes up heads a million trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion consecutive times, please call me.
Q: What about the creation account in Genesis 1?
A: Well, let’s take a look at the actual description of events, ignoring for the moment the mythopoeic language of “evening and morning, X day”:
In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.
Now the earth was formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters.
And God said, "Let there be light," and there was light.
God saw that the light was good, and He separated the light from the darkness. God called the light "day," and the darkness he called "night.”
And God said, "Let there be an expanse between the waters to separate water from water." So God made the expanse and separated the water under the expanse from the water above it. And it was so. God called the expanse "sky."
And God said, "Let the water under the sky be gathered to one place, and let dry ground appear." And it was so. God called the dry ground "land," and the gathered waters he called "seas."
Then God said, "Let the land produce vegetation: seed-bearing plants and trees on the land that bear fruit with seed in it, according to their various kinds." And it was so.
The land produced vegetation: plants bearing seed according to their kinds and trees bearing fruit with seed in it according to their kinds. And God saw that it was good.
And God said, "Let there be lights in the expanse of the sky to separate the day from the night, and let them serve as signs to mark seasons and days and years, and let them be lights in the expanse of the sky to give light on the earth." And it was so. God made two great lights-the greater light to govern the day and the lesser light to govern the night. He also made the stars. God set them in the expanse of the sky to give light on the earth, to govern the day and the night, and to separate light from darkness.
And God said, "Let the water teem with living creatures, and let birds fly above the earth across the expanse of the sky." So God created the great creatures of the sea and every living and moving thing with which the water teems, according to their kinds, and every winged bird according to its kind.
And God said, "Let the land produce living creatures according to their kinds: livestock, creatures that move along the ground, and wild animals, each according to its kind." And it was so.
Then God said, "Let us make man in our image, in our likeness, and let them rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air, over the livestock, over all the earth, and over all the creatures that move along the ground." So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them.
So according to the Biblical account of creation: first there was nothing, then there was light, then darkness separated from the light, then the waters separated from the sky, then dry land appeared, then plants, then the sun moon and stars appeared in the sky, then sea creatures, then winged creatures, then land animals, and finally humankind.
Now let’s look at a cosmological timeline for earth. Note that there are numerous assumptions and simplifications in the interest of brevity. Also, some of the information is based on theoretical models:
14 billion years ago, the universe did not exist. There was only a singularity, a point in null space that contained the sum of our space-time universe. At the beginning of time as we know it, this singularity erupted outward, forming the universe as we know it. For the first 300,000 years of this outward expansion, the universe was bombarded with photons, which had the dual effect of preventing hydrogen atoms from forming, and scattering light, such that it was only after this 300,000 year period that the universe became transparent to light. Over time, elements combined to form heavier elements, our galaxies and solar systems coalesced, and some 4.5 billion years ago, the earth formed within our own solar system. At first it was unable to retain any sort of atmosphere, but over time, debris from collisions (one of which is thought to have been the genesis of our moon), combined with outgassing of carbon dioxide and water vapor from within the earth, allowed a canopy to form over our planet and finally trap heat within the atmosphere. The oceans finally condensed and our permanent water cycle was established. About 1 billion years ago, Rodinia was formed, the collective result of millions of years of plate tectonics and essentially a supercontinent that embodies the continents on which we live today. About 650 million years ago, at the beginning of the Paleozoic era, scientists believe the first land plants appeared on earth. The oxygenation of the atmosphere and the clearing of the stellar debris from our atmosphere melts away the greenhouse canopy and for the first time, exposing those living on earth to the sun, moon and stars for the first time. Conveniently, the sun is no longer too faint to adequately warm the earth and sustain the life that flourished there for the last 3 billion years. Some 500 million years ago, the Cambrian Explosion brought about a teeming wealth of sea life. Winged insects appear about 360 million years ago, and soon after that, terrestrial animals. Modern humans, of course, have only been around some 50,000 years or so, which is where our story ends.
So according to this theoretical model, first there was nothing, then there was light, then darkness separated from the light, then the waters separated from the sky, then dry land appeared, then plants, then the sun moon and stars appeared in the sky, then sea creatures, then winged creatures, then land animals, and finally humankind.
Even allowing that there is still a lot of study going on regarding pre-Cambrian life, and allowing that I’m assembling something of an ad hoc timeline, there is still a remarkable degree of similarity between the cosmological timeline for creation, and the biblical account, written thousands of years before we even conceived such disciplines as geology, evolutionary biology or modern cosmology.
Q: Don’t all religions and mythologies have creation stories?
A: Not all, but many. To make a claim of corroboration between scientific findings and Biblical interpretation, however, requires us to look at a few of them more closely:
First of all, most Eastern religions and philosophies believe in a cyclical universe, experiencing the same processes of life, death and rebirth that humans and animals do. This is not consistent with a Big Bang universe which has both a finite beginning and a finite end. Some Hindu also believe that every 300 million years or so (manvantara), the earth is submerged in water for a period of 1.7 million years (Sandhi Kala).
In some aspects of Chinese mythology, the universe was a formless chaos that coalesced into a “cosmic egg” over a period of 18,000 years. When yin and yang achieved balance, PanGu emerged and carved yin and yang into the earth and sky. He then pushes up the sky for 18,000 years, and every day the sky gets 10 feet higher, and the earth 10 feet wider. By such calculations, the universe would be about 40,000 years old, the earth 12,000 miles wide, and the sky 12,000 miles high. Tao references the yin/yang philosophy without the personification of PanGu.
According to Japanese mythology, gods summoned the divine beings Izanagi and Izanami into existence, who formed an island from the water, onto which they descended and gave birth to other islands and other deities. Izanami dies in childbirth, descends to the land of Yomi and becomes death. Izanagi searched for her, was chased out of Yomi and shed various clothespieces which became grapes, bamboo, etc. As he escaped Yomi and cleaned himself in the sea, his adornments became other gods; his eyes in particular became the sun (Amaterasu) and the moon (Tsukiyomi).
In Norse mythology, the earth is a flat disc, with Asgard at its center, and to reach it you must cross the bifrost bridge (rainbow). At the dawn of creation were a world of fire and a world of ice, and in the gap between them, a cow and a giant were born. They forged the gods, who killed Ymir and shaped the world from his body.
According to Zoroastrianism, Ahura Mazda created 16 lands, one by one, such that each would be delightful to its people. As he finished each one, Angra Mainyu applied a counter-creation, introducing plague and sin of various kinds.
In Babylonian/Assyrian mythology, Marduk carves the monster Tiamut into the earth and sky.
Roman mythology focuses mostly on the establishment of Rome, and assimilated many gods from Greek mythology. In both cases, gods represent the sun, moon, seas, and so forth. Greek mythology does suggest the world was created by gods, but who exactly is responsible varies from Homer to Hesiod to Aristophones, etc.
In Sumerian mythology, Nammu gives birth to An and Ki (heaven and earth), and again, gods beget gods which represent the sun, moon, wind, seas, etc.
So across a broad range of mythologies, religions and philosophies, we have creation accounts that do not conform at all to the scientific model. Some do not even attempt to suggest how the world began. Many stellar bodies, like the sun, moon and stars, and natural phenomena like seas and winds, are gods or controlled by gods. By contrast, the Bible treats natural phenomena as simply a part of nature. The sun and moon and stars are not gods, but genuine celestial bodies. So not only does the Bible appear to give a fair if oversimplified account of how the earth was formed, consistent with the scientific model, but as far as I can tell, it’s the only one that even comes close.
Again, this is far from the full account of human study on all these different subjects, and it’s only a small portion of what I have gathered over the last couple weeks, so this is by no means a definitive thesis on the matter. But it is an overview of what I have found, and a fair summary of my conclusions. I hope it’s enough to promote more meaningful dialogue, where we listen as much as we speak, and remain open to a broader range of ideas than the false dichotomy of either amoral atheist scientists or brain-dead Bible-thumping conspiracy-theorists.
Last edited:
\/\/0RF said:
Mostly interesting stuff, but I had to point out this little gem of bullsh*t because it's one of the most pernicious beliefs of human history that religion and God are the same thing.
There is no justification for believing in scripture as the majority of church-going people do. None. Whatsoever. Studying the spectrum of religious texts might, at a stretch, give us a glimpse at people who may have experienced God, but taking one particular text, often edited and translated beyond usefulness, and saying "This is the truth and I will base my life on it" or, worse, going to a church and saying "This priest speaks the truth from this book and I will base my life on his interpretation" is intellectual laziness.
It's not a matter of 'faith', or 'there are many paths to God' - if it doesn't matter what you believe, only how much you believe, then surely the beliefs which you arrive at yourself will be far more powerful than those someone else gives you gift-wrapped.
I've been to a lot of CofE church services, and if there's any spirituality in a bunch of old people afraid of death mumbling the same lines and singing the same dull songs over and over again I'll eat my hat. Then go to Hell, presumably.
Philosophy brings men's minds through atheism and possibly towards God, but never towards religion.
Why are you busting on me for something a dead guy said 400 years ago?
Here's the full essay for context, so you can plumb the depths of his mind if it suits you, but it is irrelevant to the original point, that he, a scientist, in some respects THE scientist, believed in a creator God, as his own words demonstrate.
:edit: to be fair, if I'm reading your post correctly, I do side with you in that I hold little hope for the future of those for whom religion is programmed or inherited, rather than passionately pursued.
Here's the full essay for context, so you can plumb the depths of his mind if it suits you, but it is irrelevant to the original point, that he, a scientist, in some respects THE scientist, believed in a creator God, as his own words demonstrate.
:edit: to be fair, if I'm reading your post correctly, I do side with you in that I hold little hope for the future of those for whom religion is programmed or inherited, rather than passionately pursued.
Last edited:
\/\/0RF said:
*sigh* Why did you assume I was busting on you? You posted it, I assumed you might want to discuss it. Come down from your cross, Worf, your dinner's getting cold.
My point was that scientists believing in intelligent design does not mean they believe in Christian creationism. Nor would it constitute a scientific basis for Christian creationism if they did.
You're arguing a converse that I never stated (here we go again). I said that not all scientists are atheists. Example: Mr. Founder of the Scientific Method Christian Man. I did NOT say that ALL religious scientists or ID supporters ARE Christian, neither did I assume anyone's religiosity. Bacon's essays testify to his faith, I have no need to do so, nor do I suggest by it that all ID supporters must ascribe to the tenets of his essays. I should also note at this point that some of my research led me to Islamic ID websites as well.
Christian faith is not a prerequisite for the posits which I made (even when I single out the Bible creation story, I have not at this point discounted Judaism or Islam or other Abrahamic religions from consideration). What I was stating was 180-degrees removed from that: atheism is not a prerequisite for the acceptance of scientific theories. I am doing nothing more than trying to dispel a false dichotomy of "you're either with us or agin' us".
Christian faith is not a prerequisite for the posits which I made (even when I single out the Bible creation story, I have not at this point discounted Judaism or Islam or other Abrahamic religions from consideration). What I was stating was 180-degrees removed from that: atheism is not a prerequisite for the acceptance of scientific theories. I am doing nothing more than trying to dispel a false dichotomy of "you're either with us or agin' us".
Last edited:
\/\/0RF said:
Jesus f***ing Christ, I never said you did. I felt it was an interesting point that your post brought up and so I pointed it out. All I said was that Bacon was wrong that philosophy lead back to religion, I gave my alternative view and expanded on it a bit. I never once commented on whatever your opinion was, only Bacon's.
Well, since it's entirely tangential to my post, I hope you'll forgive me if I don't comment on it.
SimplyCosmic
ERGO. VIS A VIS. CONCORDANTLY.
\/\/0RF said:
<insert obligatory joke about busting on others for something a dead guy said 2000 years ago here>
Are you the one quoting Him? And am I calling you out on it? Thought not. Nice analogy. But hey, don't let accuracy get in the way of your quest for irony.
Thanks for joining the discussion. Your views are appreciated.
Thanks for joining the discussion. Your views are appreciated.