On the other hand are the Bible fundalmentalists who insist upon a simple 7-day creation and ignore any legitimate evidence that challengenes their interpretation of it.
And both sides ignore the facts of history in front of them. For example, as the world was emerging from the stone age, the Great Pyramids were already thousands of years old, constructed with a curvature that exactly matches the earth and laid out to duplicate the Milky Way 10,500 years ago. How was this done? Who did this? Who knew the world was round? It wouldn’t be proven until thousands of years later. Who knew about a Milky Way and why duplicate it in the desert? How were they built by primitive people to stand for thousands of years, when they can’t be duplicated with today’s technology and engineering? Is there a connection between them and our existence?
They have no answers, but do these questions stop them? No. Both sides ignore these things, rationalize them away and continue to persist in their own dogmatic, preconceived beliefs, spending their energy on calling each other names.
The dogma that scientists follow in uncovering pre-history is as stated by J.V.N. Talmage, “The archaeological finds of pre-historic cultural objects must be so arranged that the cruder industries must always be dated earlier than those of a more advance type, regardless of where they are found.”
Uh -oh! Doesn’t it wrinkle the old parchment now when “very advanced” civilizations are discovered – beneath the layers of prehistoric civilizations! Whups – let’s just ignore that civilization.
The conventional theories of science are problematic in that they offer wild theories and guesses without proof or logic. A ‘spark’ caused a ‘big bang’ to occur, somehow and at some time that in someway started everything in motion. No one knows when, how or from where that initial ‘spark’ came from and theories come and go like idols in Hollywood.
Species evolved from nothing and then cross evolved somehow, although there is no evidence of this. There is no fossil evidence of evolution between species. Yet the world believes it without question. (Actually, new findings tend to disprove cross-species evolution.) The proof of ‘macro-evolution’ is not forthcoming. The proof of evolution is ‘micro-evolution’ – changes within a species – and that’s adaptation. As new discoveries are made and new facts come to light, the timelines get re-juggled and fossil histories are rearranged to fit into the already preconceived ideas and theories.
On one hand, there is much evidence of the universe being millions or even billions of years old, even given the flaws and distortions of carbon dating methods. But religious fundamentalists refuse to consider this and only generate discord, dissent with a spew of useless words defending their position and condemning the person presenting.
On the other hand there is no true evidence of life being that old, only of it being thousands of years old – a mere flicker in the hands of time.
There is massive amounts of evidence to show early forms of ‘humanoid’ type of beings on earth, that predate 7000 years and the Biblical story of Adam and Eve. How is this reconciled? Biblical accounts themselves, leave open the idea and possibilities of other ‘people’ existing at the time of Adam and Eve. For example, Who did Cain marry? And who was Cain ‘fearful’ of? Who were the people of ‘Nod’? Rather than take an open and honest look at these things, fundamentalists dig in and conjure up a web of fantasy.
Are the ‘experts’ on either side, willing to step out of their strongholds and look at evidence openly and objectively? Apparently, not. Bible ‘scholars’ and scientists alike, are too busy defending their paradigms and calling one another names, rather than attempting to piece the puzzle together. Both sides create their own puzzles and if a piece is in the wrong place – they’ll force it in and defend it to the death!
But, is science and the Bible really irreconcilable? Or could (should ?) there be agreement? If the Bible is the account of creation and God, and science is the understanding of creation – then shouldn’t science confirm and support the Biblical accounts?
When Bible scholars ignore science, they become entrenched in their stories they speculate and go to ridiculous extremes to rationalize their faith and claims. They make science the enemy and turn the Bible into mythology.
When science tries to answer the questions without including God, then it becomes derogatory and condescending and becomes a religion of its own worshipping its own theories. It generates speculation – turns the speculation into theory and then worships its own theories. It makes religion the enemy and speculation becomes faith.
There should be no “enemy”.
We must always keep two things in mind.
First: Science does not determine whether the Bible is true or not true.
The “latest” word in science has never been the “last” word in science.
The newest discovery or breakthrough, no matter how earth shattering will itself be refuted, revised or rejected when the next discovery or breakthrough comes out that “blows our mind”. The thing that science does the best is to correct, disprove, and replace existing misunderstanding and misconceptions while generating new speculations. It’s good for disproving things but not very good at proving things. Over time, theories build upon theories and gradually a picture begins to form, but the picture is always fuzzy, distorted with many portions missing. Science is an ongoing, work in progress – it is not an end product.
Theories change every year. Currently the “Big Bang”, the “Oscillating” and the “Steady State” theories are in vogue. Every few years someone new comes along and throws out some new idea. But they all have one thing in common – they don’t know what, how, when or where the original “spark” came from.
Science leaves a void – the big question of “Why?” No animals consider those questions – only humans. Why is that? There are four essential things that science cannot explain regardless of what theories it proposes:
1. It cannot bridge the gulf between ‘nothing’ to ‘something’.
2. It cannot bridge the gulf between something and life.
3. It cannot bridge the gulf between life and humanity – self-conscious life with free will.
4. It cannot answer “Why”. Why is there life? Why did life begin? What’s the purpose of life?
So, it takes the easy way out and states, “Well, that’s not the job of science, that’s religion’s job.” Then they attack religion.
I beg to differ. Science is discovering and understanding the world and universe around us. Why and how that universe is there is precisely the goal of science and of humans.
Second: The Bible is not a science book. It’s not written or designed to explain the how’s and when’s of everything. The Biblical account of creation is not a scientific thesis. It is not designed to explain creation to us – it’s designed to tell us the story of salvation.
The problem with understanding the Bible is that we read it from a modern perspective with modern language, modern interpretations, modern understandings and modern scientific principles. But, is that the way it was written? Were those the understandings of the writer? What was the writer’s perspective? How did his language express that perspective? What was the writer’s purpose? All scripture is given by God – but are all translations? Are all interpretations? Of course not – we’ve watched them change down through the centuries and now there are over 50 different translations and we watch as different groups clinging to different translations as being the only “perfect” one over all the others.
I believe to understand the creation account as given in Genesis – one must understand what it meant to the writer. To do that, one must research the original texts, how they were written, the language used, the time it was written and the purpose of the writings. I’m not sure we can do that, but Jewish scholars will be the most reliable sources.
In general, Biblical creation is based on faith.
In general, scientific theory is based on speculation.
With the inability of science to prove its theories, science speculation is becoming increasingly based on faith.
If we say that the initial “spark” of life or existence came from God, it’s ridiculed. But, is that any more mythical than the scientific theories of creation? Think that’s hard to believe and accept? Well then try believing and accepting that somehow, someway and at some time a live cell, a little amoeba (that no one knows where it came from or how it came to be in existence) crawled out of a sea (that no one knows where it came from or how it came to be) unto land (that no one knows where it came from or how it came to be) and transformed itself into a tadpole – into a bird – into a dinosaur – into a primate, into a human – all by the simple magic of ‘time‘, even though there is no proof or evidence of such changes ever occurring. And, of course, everything had to be just perfect for all this to happen, temperatures, air, water, nutrition, etc. and we don’t know where all that came from or how it’s controlled either; and of course they had to survive these changes, even though it’s impossible to exist without them; for all these things to have happened. But by saying the magic words “given enough time abbra cadabbra kazaam! anything can happen, let it be so!” And somehow it happened.
That’s kind of out there, wouldn’t you say? I predict that, if the world lasts, it won’t be long before the theory of evolution will go the way of the dinosaur and all the current “experts” will be touting a new theory – one that they’ll all cling to as ‘gospel’, and one which will not include God. After all, that’s what the war is all about, isn’t it? You see, if we accept a creator, then we must accept an authority. That’s the part that really troubles men.
…the universe came into existence billions of years ago.
…but life (as we know it) only came into existence within the last 10000 years?
…Genesis 1:1 is a true account of creation…
…but it’s not the whole story?
…Genesis 1:2 – 2:3 is a real 24 hour, seven-day account of creation…
…but it’s not about the same creation…
…but rather a second creation?
What if there were two separate creations, one a long time ago and the other only a few thousand years ago – separated by millions or billions of years?
The issue between science and Bible is not which story of creation is right – the issue is what did God want to tell us in the story of creation? What’s its purpose?
Well – Light the torches…and stoke up the fires – let the witch burnings commence.
Until Next Time:
Embrace Life’s Bridges – For they Define Who You Are