Re: [asa] Evolution in the Bible

Mike: I'm not saying that you ought not interpret the Bible. You have to do that to your satisfaction, period. As a matter of fact, your idea of limiting it to the solar system seems fairly close to something that delivers a greater truth to the original readers without trying to encompass all future knowledge in the process. A good compromise between revealed knowledge and impossibly remote technical truths seems to me personally to be a wise strategy..

Yes, your point is a good one. I believe your view is also supported by the absence of scripture that suggests a BB birth. Any theory grander (eg multiverses) will probably look even worse.

I appreciate your comments regarding the solar system scenario. Thanks. Though with a fair amount of detail, I presented it in draft form in two bible forums. The responses were feeble at best. My guess was it would be shot down due to interpretation problems, but that did not happen. [I coined it EvoGenesis but there is a Japanese cartoon that has uses that term, so I don't know if I should use it. Besides, the critics will quickly spin “Evo” into “evil”. :) ]

[GeorgeA had said : 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.]

I, personally find that the important Biblical info has nothing to do with scientific truths and everything to do with how we should treat each other under the providence of God.

The tenets of our faith are not predicated on how strong our Genesis interpretation is seen, thankfully. But, whenever a religious document, or any subjective claim, includes objective elements testable by science, the impact from science will either strengthen or ridicule the subjective claim. Genesis has objective elements.

And I'm absolutely sure the cosmos proceeds for hundreds of billions of light years looking just like it does here, but I'm almost as certain that another billion billion light years distant, that it look notably different.

Don’t you mean almost absolutely sure? J If the initial conditions for BBT become somehow known, the probability of a finite spew of galaxies could be come reasonably high, higher than the probability for an infinite one. I suspect that is the case already.

[G had said…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. ]

If it jumps out at you, you'd certainly try it on for size, that's a perfectly reasonable process. It's trying to force fit it to an existing model that I think leads to problems.

So you don’t really like the contrived and the ad hoc conjectures? Agreed. You are wise to warn against it as some of these interpretations are laughable for good reason. This becomes detrimental to the faith, just as St. Augustine had warned.

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.

I guess I'm led to wonder what difference 3.14 vs 3.0 makes? To me, it would have zero bearing on my reading of that passage describing artwork adorning the house of god. Zero. If the passage were about how men should calculate the relationship between the diameter and circumference of a circle, that would be one thing. But leafing through the semantics of the Bible for rational side-proofs of the perfection of God is, to me, a tiny bit of idolatry in that it kind of says you need more proof than the face value of whats being said.

I like to separate the subjective from the objective. Science is wonderful in working with the objective. This strength science has comes from the major restriction of its self-impossed demarcation from subjectivity; it limits only allow objectivity where others can obtain similar measurable results.

Most religious text avoid objective statements. Not the Bible, thought it to is limited in the number of objective elements it contains. This is another important strength of the Bible, however. The more archeology agrees with the Biblical claims, the greater the credit the Bible receives.

The 1 King example was used because it makes an objective statement that is testable by science, math in this case. If the Bible were to fail the test, it would be subject to some reasonable criticism, though we could counter this with metaphors or generalities. Still the criticism would linger. In this particular case in 1 Kings, taking a metaphorical view would be difficult considering the large number of details. For instance, besides the detailed measurements, knops were adorned on the bowl. The builder should want to know where to place them using measurement, though trial and error also works. If we know the true diameter, and we do – 10 cubits less the brim of a hand on each side, then pi is inserted to give us the circumference, which matches the circumference of 30 cubits as stated in the scripture.

By demonstrating the passages revealed enough clear information that gave a true value of pi, it ended the criticism for this part of scripture. Indeed, it gave the Bible greater credibility, not less.

[GeorgeA had said: 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.]

The problem is, if they don't infer some limiting criteria, they attempt to make a model that is potentially a complete and sufficient answer to the whole universe. It's reflexive. In doing so they make assumptions like the cosmological principal and inflation in an effort to to support a complete picture that history strongly suggests does not exist. It's a psychological issue much more than an evidence thing.

If that were true then it would not be a scientific theory. BBT is supported by very strong objective evidence: nucleosynthesis, galaxy morphologies, metallicities, CMBR, the isotropy and anisotropy of the CMBR, along with several other features within the CMBR. You can take the measurements yourself if you have the access and the funds. The predictions that have sprung forth from BBT have been very helpful in making it the mainstream theory. This is true for any theory.

No other time in history has there been a theory of such strength regarding cosmology. It is subject to change, of course, but let’s not discredit that which it has earned.

I actually suggest in my book that the scientific method should be slightly altered to include a Bayesian component of what is most probable in terms of characterizing the unknown. I am not nearly the first to suggest this step either.

Wouldn’t an infinite model as you suggest produce an entirely new theory for BBT, or is the Bayesian work an extrapolation of BBT? This is not mainstream, as I understand BBT, but I can’t argue against your interesting view or augmentation.

It has been edifying to me, however to hear your views on this, in that I have only recently joined the list and have a limited perspective on the general landscape of sci. vs. religion. Thanks for your detailed, cogent, fearless responses.

I enjoyed it, too, Mike. Thanks

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 17:20:52 2007