From: George Cooper <georgecooper@sbcglobal.net>
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.
That's funny.
Besides, the critics will quickly spin “Evo” into “evil”. :)
]
That's not.
[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.
I'm saying the Big Bang is finite (like a big black hole that somehow reversed itself and went supernova equivalent) and that the visible universe is tiny pocket in that burst (imagine the Sun blew up and the fireball reached out to Pluto but you were living on a mote of dust back near the orbit of Mercury and could only see a few meters in any direction) and that if you go far enough away you won't see any of the Big Bang any more but very probably will eventually find other cosmic scale black holes that are not blowing up and maybe a few that are in one stage or another of blowing up. Something like that is what I imagine to be somewhat likely.even though I've got a few other real corker concepts for a multiple concentric nested event horizon black hole structure in which normal space/time is only extant in one of these many layers between event horizons. (Seriously, don't get me started. Seriously.)
[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.
George says:
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.
Earthly history is precisely where science and the Bible converge in the least ambiguous way. That's totally fair game and really a place where the Bible could get some serious objective traction.
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.
All that stuff says is that things were very close together at one time around 14 bil year ago and that everything anywhere near us today was all in there smashed together with us. I agree with all of that. My only departure from all BBT theory is that it is ultimately finite in extent and that there are most probably other examples of BBs scattered about at that scale. Being a finite starting point like a cosmic scale black hole that went boom obviates the need for inflation because there is no infinite density starting point. You can start the whole thing off at post inflation densities and it will work the same. Being finite also allows the cosmological principal to only have to be regionally pervasive.
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.
Doesn't have to change much to meet a finite model, but then again, no one really knows what it's like a billion billion light years past Orion's belt, myself not least among them.
-Mike (Friend of ASA and Bayesian Nut Job.)
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
________________________________________________________________________
More new features than ever. Check out the new AOL Mail ! - http://o.aolcdn.com/cdn.webmail.aol.com/mailtour/aol/en-us/text.htm?ncid=aolcmp00050000000003
To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Thu Dec 6 01:19:34 2007
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Thu Dec 06 2007 - 01:19:34 EST