Posts Tagged ‘Darwin’

“In the beginning there was God, and he created out of nothing the vast and dark expanse of the heavens.  After brining forth the darkness of the heavens, God created the first light.  He created great balls of fire called stars, and the one that would be closest to the Earth and appear the largest was called the sun, and it would be the greater light to govern the day.  The other stars in the heavens God set at a great distance from the Earth — further than the east is from the west, and so the light of those stars is small, like a man coming from a long journey appears small on the horizon.  Then, God used the stars like a mighty furnace to bake like one bakes bread, and he did so for epochs upon epochs. And from the stars, God brought forth that which he had baked, and he formed the Earth from that which he took from the stars, and other heavenly bodies like the Earth, that were also made of rock, but on them he did not put man. The Lord did this, and he saw that it was good. Then the Lord took part of the Earth and crafted the moon from it, and He deemed that it should serve as the lesser light that governs the night. And the Lord set the moon to roll around the Earth like an apple rolls upon the ground, and likewise he set the Earth to roll around the Sun, like an apple rolls upon the ground, and he saw that it was good…….”  

That’s how Genesis 1 would read (or something similar) if it were trying to be an accurate representation of actual events in history.  We don’t need to continue on to the creation of living things, because if the account of how the universe and solar system was created is so demonstrably wrong, there is no reason to think the remainder is any more accurate.

I tend to avoid conversations with creationists centered on the evolution of species because inevitably someone will want me to show them a “monkey turning into a human.”  The proof and evidence for evolution is rock solid (no pun intended), and anyone who is willing to take the time to investigate it can see as much.  To conclude that evolution is not the culprit in explaining how we have arrived in our present form, is akin to finding a murderer innocent, despite having video footage of him at the scene, his prints on the murder weapon, and DNA evidence linking him to the crime (see The Greatest Show On Earth for a further expansion of this illustration).  However, again, this post is not about the evolution of species, but instead it is about the evolution of a universe, which unlike human evolution, we can directly observe how it occurred because we happen to have a time machine — the Hubble Telescope.

Due to the unique nature of space-time, when we look out into space, we’re actually looking backwards in time, and we can see how the universe developed.  When we do this, there is no doubt that it did not happen like the book of Genesis says it did.  In fact, the book of Genesis gives us the following order of creation: (1) Earth/Heavens, (2) Sun, (3) Moon and Stars.  However, when we look back in time, we can see that the early universe was comprised primarily of hydrogen and helium, which birthed the first stars.  That’s right — stars were the first stellar objects born in the cosmos, and not the last as is portrayed in Genesis.  Through the process of fusion, stars “baked” and created new elements which were ejected via supernova, amassed into new stars, creating new elements,  and repeating the cycle until we had everything you see on the periodic table of elements today.  Without the process of fusion taking place in stars over billions of years, planets like the Earth would not even be possible, and yet Genesis says it was the first celestial body created.

Even within our own solar system, Genesis has things backwards.  We’ve established that stars are responsible for creation of the elements, but all evidence when we peer out into space also indicates that solar systems are born out of protoplanetary disks that surround stars.  In other words, first comes the star, and then comes the planets — not the other way around.  So, if you were to play the first few verses of Genesis backwards like an old Black Sabbath album, you’d be a whole lot closer to having things in the right order.  Some might say that Genesis can’t be accurate because the people of the time would not have understood “the real way” God made things.  They certainly would not have understood concepts like gravity or fusion, but I don’t see how anyone in Old Testament times would not have been able to understand my Genesis account above, and it would have made a whole lot more sense to us today.

Now let me say here that the Bible does not claim to be a science book, nor do I expect it to be one.  What the Bible does, however, is make explicit claims about reality, which can be empirically tested to determine their reliability.  As a result, the first 14 verses of the Bible are shown to be totally incorrect, and an untrustworthy account of our origins.  The argument could always be made of course, that God just makes things look that way, but he really did things the way the Bible says.  This would make God out to be a deceiver who purposely fools people into unbelief, and  I don’t think many Christians would want to sign on with that kind of God.  There are many Christians who have taken what I would consider a more reasonable approach to things, though it is certainly a position that I would not take.  They view Genesis as a creation myth that is told with a bigger idea in mind.  They accept it as an allegory or illustration of a “greater truth,”  and as a result, they are able to keep their faith intact.  Like I said, I wouldn’t be able to accept this position, but many Christian’s do, and I have to give them credit for not clinging to dogma in the face of undeniable evidence.


Read Full Post »