I read recently that the Hebrew word used in Genesis to describe the Creation story ("Yom") could have three different meanings. One is a 12 hour period. Another is 24 periods of something (24 seasons, 24 days, 24 years, etc. The last possible meaning is "a time period". This could mean a season, a year, a millennium, etc.
I'm no language expert- and surely don't know Hebrew (so I might be entirely wrong), but if this is true then a literal translation of the Creation story may be problematic. Do we really know what the "literal" translation is?
One theory I've heard to solve this "problem" is that the King James Version was inspired by the Holy Spirit in such a way as to be a translation we can count on being literally God's words.
In going to the website http://www.religioustolerance.org/ev_world1.htm, I saw these interesting theories on the Genesis account of Creation:
1- It happened exactly as the Bible- in its current English translations- says it did (God created the world in 6, 24-hour periods)
2- God created the world in 6 days, but the days were not contiguous- there were long periods of time in between each day.
3- God's "days" are a thousand days to a human "day"- therefore it happened over 6,000 days.
4- God's "days" are "like" a thousand days- so they could be any time period- to us they are long, to God they are "only" a day.
5- The Creation story is a metaphor- not meant to actually describe what happened, but to give humans a model from which to follow in as far as work, worship, and rest.
6- Each day represented millions of years
7- God did create the universe in 6 days, but it happened a long time ago (unknowable).
8- The author of Genesis used a narrative device to describe the Creation in "acts"- instead of "Act I", he used "Day 1". In other words, it is impossible to know how long "Act I", etc. was.
9- God described the Creation to Moses and took 6 days to describe it. Moses described the illustration.
10- God commanded Creation to take place over 6 days, and then it took a much longer period to take place
11- depending on your "time perspective" (since time is relative), from God's perspective (outside looking in?) the days were short. From our perspective (inside?) it would have been billions of years- but even that is problematic- since "we" weren't around billions of years ago. (this theory somehow agrees very closely with Big Bang Theory calculations for the age of the Universe)
12- and, my "favorite" : "...Replicated earth theory: Mike Schuler has developed a novel theory of origins, and has begun a web site to explain this and other scientific puzzles. He believes that God created an original earth. He spent billions of years trying every possible genetic code, to see what types of life would result. Most of the species were useless. God created a mass extinction event whenever the world filled up with such unneeded species. At the end of this great experiment, he was ready to create humans in the image of God. So he created an exact copy of that original earth in perfect detail, down to the atomic level. This took him only six days, as Genesis states. Schuler draws the analogy of the creation of a music CD. It might take months to create a new CD, but a copy can be created in seconds..."
I, personally, have one question for all of the theories which hold that it had to have happened (any part that God took direct part in) in a certain time period. For an omnipotent God, why would it not have happened instantaneously? It would seem to me to be more believable that it really was a metaphor to show us how to live, and that in reality it happened in a way most likely only known to God.
The science fiction lover in me, however, likes the "time perspective" theory. Time being relative is very hard for the layman to understand (me being one of them). At the start of the Big Bang (if the theory is right), time, space, and matter were compressed in ways beyond our understanding. To explain how it really happened, one would have to know from what perspective it was being described. Since humans weren't around according to the Bible- it would only follow it wasn't from our perspective.
In the end, however- it should only matter how it happened if it effects the central tenets of our faith. Does it?
Showing posts with label Creation. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Creation. Show all posts
Sunday, May 31, 2009
Sunday, May 10, 2009
1 problem with Evolution down, 1 to go
After a HS education and some college-level classes on biological evolution and then reading a book called Scientific Creationism (and 20+ years of religious education and thought) I found myself having two issues with evolution as I understood it:
1) on the macro level I tied it to The Big Bang and saw an inconsistency at some level with respect to the need for a "first cause" at some point. At some point I thought science had a problem with being consistent: the further one went back, the closer one got to a conclusion that a Creator of some kind was needed (who created the mass of stuff that "banged"?).
2) at the micro level I thought there were too many holes in the fossil record to back up evolution. I thought evolution theory held that over a long period of time through random mutations and natural selection new species would emerge. If that were true surely at least one species would have a fossilized record of most of the variations it went through to arrive at what they are today.
Since there was no such record that I could find for even one species- I thought the theory didn't jive.
Recently, however, from readings on Complexity theory and "Emergence" (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emergence and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Punctuated_Equilibrium) I've come to the belief that the fossil record might not contradict a theory of evolution- and that the education I got on evolution (and the way Darwinian evolution is taught) was wrong. The basic idea is that life is not chaotic or random- there are rules that structure life and that we all have to follow (one could suppose physics is an attempt to "discover" these rules that govern the universe).
From that initial structure- certain changes in the environment (quite possibly NOT random- but seemingly to us on the micro level) lead to very quick change and whole species developing seemingly overnight. And that is followed by long periods of seemingly no change. So- the fossil record wouldn't show a thousand different variations in a species because there weren't a thousand variations.
The bottom line on these concepts is that we aren't here by accident- based on the initial conditions everything we see at the macro level is more or less pre-determined (although there are plenty of micro happenstance) based on the structure (rules) of the universe (think physics)-although "emergence" would probably state it is pre-determined, but only identified as such from hindsight (unless one is an all-knowing entity).
All of that leads me to believe that one of my problems with evolution has died a slow death. But- does that lead me further from the concept of God? My conclusion is "no"- and actually I even feel closer to a belief in a "Creator". I somehow get the feeling that the mechanics of God are way out of my league the more I learn- but I actually think my other "problem" with evolution- the one that deals with the eventuality of inconsistency- is actually GREATER as I accept the "new" evolutionary theories. When one follows the logic trail all the way back to the beginning of the universe it seems to me that there IS design, there IS structure, there IS a purpose- based on emergence theory and punctuated equilibrium.
Why? Because everything rests on initial conditions and thus the world isn't chaotic and filled with chance- based on those concepts. And there are rules and structure to life. All of that leads me logically towards something setting those initial conditions, establishing the structure and rules, and something that could possibly figure the macro patterns that will emerge light years from now (or from the beginning) i.e., an all-knowing entity. Of course we can't prove this, but I'd argue it goes both ways (we can't prove another way either). When you factor in the fact that only a very small percentage of the universe (4%) is even detectable (see dark matter: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_matter) and only 22% of the rest is even indirectly detectable- it seems very likely that we may never be able to "prove" (or disprove) a Creator in this life and/or dimension.
In the end I may be framing the term evolution incorrectly. To me evolution cannot be separated with the initial conditions of the universe and what started it all (Big Bang or something else). I know they are two distinct theories, but in my overall concept of the universe it is difficult and seemingly inconsistent to separate them from the same underlying logic (that logic being either no "Designer" running things and having influence- or a Designer doing something either at the beginning or continuously (read: God). Indeed, both emergence and Complexity theories would hold that evolution at the micro biological level depends entirely on however the Universe started and the rules inherent within.
Can you have evolution and still have God? Or, more presciently: can you be consistent within the concepts of evolution as we understand them today and declare there is no God? I would argue that it would be difficult.
1) on the macro level I tied it to The Big Bang and saw an inconsistency at some level with respect to the need for a "first cause" at some point. At some point I thought science had a problem with being consistent: the further one went back, the closer one got to a conclusion that a Creator of some kind was needed (who created the mass of stuff that "banged"?).
2) at the micro level I thought there were too many holes in the fossil record to back up evolution. I thought evolution theory held that over a long period of time through random mutations and natural selection new species would emerge. If that were true surely at least one species would have a fossilized record of most of the variations it went through to arrive at what they are today.
Since there was no such record that I could find for even one species- I thought the theory didn't jive.
Recently, however, from readings on Complexity theory and "Emergence" (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emergence and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Punctuated_Equilibrium) I've come to the belief that the fossil record might not contradict a theory of evolution- and that the education I got on evolution (and the way Darwinian evolution is taught) was wrong. The basic idea is that life is not chaotic or random- there are rules that structure life and that we all have to follow (one could suppose physics is an attempt to "discover" these rules that govern the universe).
From that initial structure- certain changes in the environment (quite possibly NOT random- but seemingly to us on the micro level) lead to very quick change and whole species developing seemingly overnight. And that is followed by long periods of seemingly no change. So- the fossil record wouldn't show a thousand different variations in a species because there weren't a thousand variations.
The bottom line on these concepts is that we aren't here by accident- based on the initial conditions everything we see at the macro level is more or less pre-determined (although there are plenty of micro happenstance) based on the structure (rules) of the universe (think physics)-although "emergence" would probably state it is pre-determined, but only identified as such from hindsight (unless one is an all-knowing entity).
All of that leads me to believe that one of my problems with evolution has died a slow death. But- does that lead me further from the concept of God? My conclusion is "no"- and actually I even feel closer to a belief in a "Creator". I somehow get the feeling that the mechanics of God are way out of my league the more I learn- but I actually think my other "problem" with evolution- the one that deals with the eventuality of inconsistency- is actually GREATER as I accept the "new" evolutionary theories. When one follows the logic trail all the way back to the beginning of the universe it seems to me that there IS design, there IS structure, there IS a purpose- based on emergence theory and punctuated equilibrium.
Why? Because everything rests on initial conditions and thus the world isn't chaotic and filled with chance- based on those concepts. And there are rules and structure to life. All of that leads me logically towards something setting those initial conditions, establishing the structure and rules, and something that could possibly figure the macro patterns that will emerge light years from now (or from the beginning) i.e., an all-knowing entity. Of course we can't prove this, but I'd argue it goes both ways (we can't prove another way either). When you factor in the fact that only a very small percentage of the universe (4%) is even detectable (see dark matter: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_matter) and only 22% of the rest is even indirectly detectable- it seems very likely that we may never be able to "prove" (or disprove) a Creator in this life and/or dimension.
In the end I may be framing the term evolution incorrectly. To me evolution cannot be separated with the initial conditions of the universe and what started it all (Big Bang or something else). I know they are two distinct theories, but in my overall concept of the universe it is difficult and seemingly inconsistent to separate them from the same underlying logic (that logic being either no "Designer" running things and having influence- or a Designer doing something either at the beginning or continuously (read: God). Indeed, both emergence and Complexity theories would hold that evolution at the micro biological level depends entirely on however the Universe started and the rules inherent within.
Can you have evolution and still have God? Or, more presciently: can you be consistent within the concepts of evolution as we understand them today and declare there is no God? I would argue that it would be difficult.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
