tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5538677.post5308902638962476719..comments2016-06-21T10:39:48.531-05:00Comments on Scriptorium: Science and CreationGreg Grahamhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11290074804358990591noreply@blogger.comBlogger7125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5538677.post-39382892302500577492012-05-19T06:32:46.000-05:002012-05-19T06:32:46.000-05:00I read a book some time ago that pointed out that ...I read a book some time ago that pointed out that thinkers throughout the ages often struggled with the question that arose from the Genesis account, of how God could create light before He created the sun, since obviously light comes from the sun. The author pointed out the irony of modern science (which so many take as being opposed to the Genesis account) actually supporting Genesis in this matter by predicating the existence of photons after the Big Bang prior to the formation of stars. <br><br>Ever since I read that, I've been playing with the idea of Genesis being a bit more scientifically applicable than modern Catholic (pro-science) thinking generally asserts. So we got the non-existence "before" the Big Bang (the 'void' of verse 2); then the Big Bang (v3), with photons forming soon after, and the separation of matter into atoms and space between (v8?), and the combination of particles into atoms and molecules, including water (v9?), and so on.<br><br>The most interesting conclusion that this line of thinking would generate is that the first life (v 12) existed even before the formation of stars. Modern science generally assumes that life was first created in the complexity of a cooling molten planet, but it has also been bandied about that life could travel between stars on meteors and such. Thinking that life could have started in the complexity of the pre-stars milieu does not seem to me to be much more of a stretch than starting on the barren earth. (And it gives hope that there may be aliens!)annafirtreehttp://annafirtree.wordpress.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5538677.post-18662094564097860512012-05-03T14:58:02.000-05:002012-05-03T14:58:02.000-05:00David, thanks for reminding me about this structur...David, thanks for reminding me about this structure of Genesis 1. That is a good thing to remember when people object that the "order is wrong" in when the various things are created in comparison to the chronology currently understood in Evolution. Chronology was probably not the primary concern for the writer of Genesis 1.Greg Grahamhttp://hoctempus.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5538677.post-57592799661025246052012-04-30T14:25:08.000-05:002012-04-30T14:25:08.000-05:00[...] Science and Creation (hoctempus.com) [...][...] Science and Creation (hoctempus.com) [...]Creation Science. Oxymoron? « Daniel Lovetthttp://daniellovett.wordpress.com/2011/10/11/creation-science-oxymoron/noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5538677.post-74172355593326052412012-04-30T15:43:24.000-05:002012-04-30T15:43:24.000-05:00Daniel, I respect your desire to hold to a literal...Daniel, I respect your desire to hold to a literal interpretation of Genesis in order to be faithful to the Bible as the Word of God. You will find as I develop my ideas on creation on this blog, however, that I see Genesis as a religious story intended to communicate important religious truths, but not scientific explanations. You will also see that I see science as about mechanics that operate at a surface level, but the Gospel is about deep eternal truth regarding the Eternal God, and his gift of Eternal Life to man.<br><br>It doesn't bother me that Genesis does not spell out all of the details that agree with our current conception of scientific mechanics. The ancient people who wrote (under God's inspiration) and received Genesis did not see the world in the same way that we do. I also think that future generations will also not see the world the same way we do. God had to pick a particular "scientific" understanding as a context for the creation story, and he chose an ancient one because compared to the mind of God, our current "scientific" understanding is not that much different than that of Moses. In other words, as much as we think we understand about the universe, we haven't even begun to know anything. If God were to *really* explain how the world began, no one would understand it.Greg Grahamhttp://hoctempus.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5538677.post-468131363734889642012-05-01T17:41:17.000-05:002012-05-01T17:41:17.000-05:00Within the context of the Pentateuch as a whole, w...Within the context of the Pentateuch as a whole, which I read as a covenant of fealty between Israel and God, Creations serves as the back-story. Hence the poetry of a "formless and void" Earth being formed in days 1,2, and 3, then populated in days 4, 5, and 6 speaks order and method long predating Galileo.But the primary authorial intent is to introduce the parties to the covenant.<br>Current science, when done "correctly," is a series of probability statements with an underlying short-odds strategy. But I'm still certain the House will win.David Lewishttp://www.lewisesservices.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5538677.post-57952976884479424522012-05-19T09:49:49.000-05:002012-05-19T09:49:49.000-05:00That's an interesting take. My understanding o...That's an interesting take. My understanding of the current models of the development of the universe is that the heavier elements that occur on Earth and are essential for life as we know it were formed in stars that later exploded. So, according to current thinking, the stars would have to exist long before life in the form we know about. Of course, as we learn more we may come up with other ways it could have happened.Greg Grahamhttp://hoctempus.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5538677.post-34250417134484955492012-05-19T13:32:40.000-05:002012-05-19T13:32:40.000-05:00Mm. That's a good point.Mm. That's a good point.Annahttp://annafirtree.wordpress.comnoreply@blogger.com