While in the shower a week or so back, I did what most men do in the shower; I did some really heavy thinking. One of the topics that came in the stream of thought was how creationism could be reconciled with the big bang theory and the theory of evolution. The solution I came up with isn't likely to be revolutionary or at all original, but I reached the conclusion independently, and I'm proud of that.
I, being a Christian, accept the idea that the entire universe was created by God in the beginning, in six days (he rested on the seventh). As such, convention would have me reject the idea of the universe being created by exploding from an infinitely dense point, and some mass landing in a perfect spot for a particular combination of chemicals to combine and start doing what we call living and eventually reproducing into different things, over the course of billions of years. To accept the big bang theory or evolution would logically negate the crux of my entire religion. If there was no creation, there was no original sin, and no need for Jesus to save us. Considering the advances in technology and the improvements to human life we have seen from people who operate on the assumption that the big bang theory and evolution are the truth, it is very difficult and seemingly stupid to reject those theories, yet I did, as most Christians do, until now. I have found a way to reconcile these ideas. Enter Plato's Cave.
Plato's Cave (aka "The Analogy of the Cave", read that before continuing) presents quite a few ideas, and I must admit that at my first exposure I latched onto a single one of them, as I do now, though, after further exploration I found that the end game of Plato's Cave was to explain the philosopher's place in society. However, the point I got initially, is that perception is reality; what is one believes to be real are the things that one experiences. The people in the cave see shadows of things, and because that is their only experience, they believe the shadows to be what is real. They have no knowledge that their "reality" is constructed by beings that are aware of a larger, more complex reality, where the shadows are but images of tangible things with mass and depth. In my view, the big bang and evolution are the shadow images which are cast by the reality of creation. Stay with me.
Both the big bang and evolution rely on the same assumption, and that is that if things work this way now, then they always will work this way, and always have worked this way. These "things" are the laws of physics for the big bang and the concept of mutating genes for evolution. My understanding of space is limited, but I assume that clues from the observable universe do ultimately suggest the universe is expanding from a single point after an explosion billions of years ago. But this assumption is made based on our understanding of physics now being applied retroactively. My understanding of genetics is also limited, but I assume that clues from the study of genetics do ultimately suggest a common ancestor. But this assumption is made based on observed mutations and some well-substantiated guesses. But let's look at it differently. What if neither of these things are true in the way scientists believe them to be? What if instead of accelerating to where they are now, the stars and galaxies were placed there? What if instead of evolving from common ancestors, animals were made as they are? What if these things were designed with the intent of the human race drawing those useful, yet inherently incorrect conclusions?
Imagine God creating. Orchestrating the placement of stars and heavenly bodies, and setting them into motion. Forming each animal on Earth, then a man to name them all. Each of these things, arranged just-so, so that with our free will, if we choose to deny our Creator, we are given something else to believe in, something else to help explain our existence. The nature we experience is much like a set of givens for a geometry problem in a math book; the dimensions set out for us to use are in many ways arbitrary to the one creating the problem, but for those who are meant to solve it, those dimensions are law.
That alternate explanation is not just good for the non-believers. The believers, too, receive the benefits as improvements to life are made. We learn new ways to subdue the land and dominate the beasts of the field and the birds of the air. Those with faith are challenged to find what they really believe. Science benefits all, because God created it to do so. He offers us cave dwellers an escape to the higher reality through his word, but even those who chose to remain in the cave are given some semblance of reality to hold onto.
The usual 50 points for reading. +100 for agreeing, +100 for disagreeing, -175 if you didn't read about the Analogy of the Cave like I asked you to.
JOSH, THE SHERM
This is a great write-up, and I don't mean to be rude, but it's a bit delusional. It sort of draws on the Ken Ham-esque idea that the Big Bang and evolution are based on assumptions, yet does nothing to credit the notion that the idea of intentional placement by a God is based not only on assumption, but upon the denial of observation. It's an argument that sounds good in one's head, but upon more than a superficial reading, is riddled with logical fallacies.
ReplyDeleteFirst, I appreciate you reading and taking the time to comment. That's very rare for my blog. Now, I very much understand that the Big Bang and evolution are based on observation. Even so, I choose to believe that God who exists outside of time, space, and matter put the evidence there for the observations to be made. Also, I would like to point out that this piece was in no way meant to covert anyone into a believer, but was intended to offer those of us who do believe in God a possible explanation about why the science is so undeniable. This explanation allows us to have our cake ( God and creation) and eat it, too (live a life that does not stifle scientific progress for the sake of faith).
DeleteI've got no problem with religion, or even people attempting to convert others. My issue with the write-up is the overly-simple explanation. While the argument composed does contain a lot of content, it can be easily summed up as, "Because God made it look that way."
DeleteI'm a Christian myself, but I'm not going to outright deny the observable universe and all its readily available evidence towards the age of the earth. Rather, I interpret Genesis to be allegory rather than a factual statement of historical events.
The Universe is so mysterious, but what keeps it interesting is the fact that everything has some sort of sensible explanation. Writing it all off as "Because God did it," is sort of destroying that sense of wonder. It's like someone asked you, "Why is the man in the painting screaming?" And you responded, "Because Edvard Munch painted it that way."
I see. There are two main points where we differ. I do indeed take Genesis for fact (though I am one to subscribe to the idea that God's days are not equivalent to our days, rather than looking at biblical lineage to determine the age of the earth). The second point is on simplicity. The man in the painting is, in plain fact, screaming because Edvard Munch painted it that way. Deeper thought on that matter may be amusing but is unnecessary. I addressed this when I said that "the dimensions are...arbitrary to the ones creating the problem". So yes, it does boil down to "Because God did it", and at least for me, that does not at all diminish the wonder that the universe is.
DeleteTo say that the deeper thought on the matters of the origin of the universe are "unnecessary" is downright insanity. If we never attempted to understand the workings of the world and simply resigned to the explanation that "God did it," we wouldn't have made all the important medical and technological advances that we have today. That type of thinking is fundamentally crucial to our way of life. To even think that such a thing could be irrelevant is absurd.
ReplyDelete