Re: [asa] Evolution in the Bible

Mike said: I didn't say the Bible should do anything! I said people shouldn't try to make the Bible fit the current cosmology.

I see no reason not to try since I hold the Bible is written in truth. One interpretation will inevitably be correct, unless plural meaning was intended. The purpose of presenting my own interpretation is to test its metal by those who are more knowledgeable than I am; iron on iron.

I will agree that many ideas do come across as too contrived and ad hoc. Yet this is understandable since Genesis was not written with enough detail to reveal exactly what was taking place. Yet, there is enough stated in Gen 1 that allows science to say something about it. If both represent truth, then concordance should emerge. We do seem overdue for a nice one.

GeorgeA had said: That is now unlikely as the observable universe is finite. It is very likely to be ~ 13.3 billion lightyears radius from us. It is likely larger, but beyond hope of direct observation.

Mike said: Just because we can only see so much of it does not detract in the slightest from the probability that what we can't see conforms to the same continuous hierarchical progression as all of the rest of it that we can see.

Agreed, BBT does not place a limit to that which is observable to us, and it is reasonable to place a higher probability on the idea that that which is beyond is not unlike that which is here.

And to say it is beyond hope of direct observation is premature. We always seem to find a way observer ever further. (and direct is a relative term. we don't see anything directly, we see the light, or in some cases particles like electrons that are emitted or reflected by the objects we observe)

The reason I chose to use "direct" is because so much can be discovered indirectly. It seems very unlikely, but not beyond hope, admittedly, -- perhaps multidimensional space exists in a form that allows sci-fi travel -- that light, or other source of information, will ever be directly observed coming from "the beyond". Indeed, if accelerated expansion is the case, we will be seeing less and less.

But all of this will only add new and improved information to our understanding of what is in God's front yard. This should not preclude us from applying what we learn to any new interpretation, especially if one makes great sense.

Consider the math example in 1 Kings 7:23+. I have seen others ridicule the Bible by claiming the Bible says the 3.0 is the inferred value of pi. Yet a more careful examination of the passage reveals that 3.14 is the better calculated value if one simply subtracts the brim width of one hand from the bowl diameter of 10 cubits. Applying knowledge can make a big difference.

GeorgeA had said: When has science ever stated that everything had been observed? The end of the 19th century claimed to have had things almost wrapped-up. Planck's father advised his son not to get in physics for this reason, but admitted that there were two minor issues outstanding: light and gravity. :)

Even now, no decent cosmologist will claim that the Big Bang contains the whole universe, but that is precisely the presumption that they labor under. It's called the cosmological principle and it states that the whole universe is homogeneous, isotropic and all the laws behave the same everywhere. The cosmological principle is highly unlikely in the first two aspects and not all that tidy in the third (just imaging how some of the laws might behave behind the veil of an event horizon).

Don't forget General Relativity. As I had mentioned, Einstein preferred to name his theory the Invariant Theory since it showed that the laws of physics are universal.

It is more likely that BBT and GR are the best models to date than any other. Anyone who can demonstrate otherwise should enjoy Sweden when they go to receive their Nobel prize. No one is saying they represent any degree of ultimate and final truth, that is not what theories do, of course.

I don't really know how much stock scientists really place on the cosmological principle. [I like this term better than the Copernican principle as I doubt he would have agreed with it since it implies Earth is just another rock around the Sun.] There is certainly a good chance we are unique as a species in the whole universe. Our planet will, undoubtedly, be unlike the vast majority of any other planet. It is the anisotropies of which we are made, so the cosmological principle has some merit since it is supported by things like the CMBR, but it is limited in application.

GeorgeA said: The Greeks 2000+ years ago knew the Sun was larger than the Earth.

But Aristarchus was way off on just how much bigger. Still, my general thesis holds. The estimate of the overall size of the Ptolemaic model was considerably smaller than the estimates of the Copernican model 500 years later.

Yes, obviously Aristarchus did not when the day with his model. As for the size, I did not know they were deemed different in size. Is this due to the parallax issue? That would make sense.

 They interpret the data just like every human has for the last two thousand years. We see something and we try to make an answer that is comprehensive. We love a complete answer and we HATE an open ended presumption. So we take whatever symmetry we see at the largest scale we can identify and we project that symmetry to whatever extent it takes to make a complete and sufficient answer for the whole enchilada. Whether it is a closed system like the Copernican spheres, an open system like the "Island Universe" of the Milky Way or an infinite model like the Big Bang, we devise a model that does whatever it takes to make a complete description of all of Creation. Sooner or later we're going to have to stop that silliness and admit that Creation is a LOT bigger than we will ever know.

I don't get the impression that anyone is saying an ultimate solution is obtainable. That is why theories are just models. BBT is a model, albeit a very powerful model due to the verifications of its predications. [However, I don't think it is an infinite model, unlike Steady State Theory.] To not try to build new and better models would be to forfeit the efficacy that emerge from them.

Seeking the truth is the same as presuming that what we know at any given time is a finite segment of what shows every sign of being an infinite ongoing hierarchical context. Admitting that prospect actually helps us predict the nature of the universe just beyond our range of data, helps us seek the truth. Instead of expecting homogeneity infinitely beyond our view, we should imagine that we just can't yet discern the change in homogeneity just like we couldn't at first detect the concentration of stars in the Milky Way from the smooth homogeneous distribution of stars all around us.

Is your theory testable? Can you demonstrate evidence for this infinite heirarchy? I can not demonstrate otherwise, but that doesn't qualify it to be a theory. I doubt many place ultimate limits to what is out there. The mulitiverse idea seems to be tolerated as a legitimate theory, though I wonder if it meets the tenets necessary to be qualified as such. Maybe it does, I haven't studied it.

GeorgeA poorly stated: Yes, since the Bible is not about science. However, allowing the Bible to be seen as silly or equivalent to Greek myths, and faith will suffer. Genesis makes strong statements that suggest scientific scrutiny has some say in its credibility. Seeking the truth is what must be continued, and not ignored in hopes science will leave it alone.

"Allowing it to be seen as silly?" What are you going to do, change it? change science? It is your interpretation of the purpose of the Bible that puts that weight, that suggestion of strong scientific scrutiny in pursuit of its credibility, onto writings that may be over 5000 years old.

Well, it is not the purpose of the Bible that brings weight, but various interpretations do vary the scientific scrutiny. Some interpretations are definitely regarded as silly. The stronger science becomes the weaker any interpretations become that are in conflict with it. However, any interpretation that is concordant with science is further strengthened by it.

How could the Bible have been written in terms that could hold up for 5 millennia of scientific progress and still be comprehensible to the people of the time in which it was written? That's an awfully big burden to place on what is predominately an account of the relationship between man and God, the likes of which is virtually timeless compared to the relationship between man and science.

Not at all. If the author is simply writing what he observed, then the account becomes ageless. A simple account is all that was necessary, even if it makes it more difficult to resolve with science. Regardless, the burden you suggest only comes to those who misrepresent the truth; eventually, their claims will be discovered to be false.

If the account represents what actually took place, there are objective elements within the text that do allow scientific scrutiny. It is reasonable to apply what science has learned to those objective elements.

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Wed Dec 5 12:26:16 2007