Re: [asa] M-Genesis

Howdy Greg, Are you a cosmologist? No, I am only an amateur astronomer.  [My specialty is heliochromology, which is a fun fabrication in itself, though it helps me appreciate why an observer could see a watery-looking disk of our early solar system.]  I’m also not a theologian.    Just to clarify once again my position, I am against biology-centrism and elevating the meaning of biology too high for society’s own good. Hopefully you can understand the reason for feeling this way, which are easier to understand if you’ve followed the story of socio-biology and now evolutionary psychology as ‘academic’ disciplines. The term 'mutations,' though you freely apply it to cosmology ('supernova blasts'), I should express to you great hesitation in using it about human beings and changes in things not part of 'natural sciences.'    Most analogies are quite limited, and mine is no exception, which should be especially obvious in the stretch I gave it to cosmology.  The emphasis was for process appreciation.  There are quantifiable things that happen within both these processes.  This does not diminish God’s glory, just as a general still gets credit for a battle victory using his plan though he himself never fired a shot.    M-Genesis takes the view that various stages of natural processes were seen by an observer in giving the Genesis 1 account.  The credit for the results were appropriately given to God, which seems to be the biggest reason for the special eye-witness (or vision) presence.  No other Gods should be before Him, and was the very first of the ten commandments.  This is in contrast to the books on Genesis that I have read that state clearly there was no eye-witness to creation.  M-Genesis rejects this supposition that seems to have become fiat.  Admittedly, accurate visions are a reasonable alternative to Moses haven been taken back in time to be an eye-witness to six important moments of a 4 billion year process.   Also, M-Genesis only allows biological evolutionary processes to have been at work; it does not require them.  Our observer, Moses probably, simply wrote what he saw.   This is the main premise to M-Genesis.   It is not without example, either.  Rev 1:19           “Write the things which thou hast seen, and the things which are, and the things which shall be hereafter,…” (KJV)  What became true for John regarding the future, may have been true for Moses.  An anthropormorphic element is included in the text as it addresses mankind.  It is their account, not dictation from a much higher order.  As a result, our authors are very limited in their ability to explain much of what they saw.   Whether or not God intervened along the way is not known.  But, today we can see a natural process that might explain much of what was seen in Gen. 1.  There is no objective evidence for life’s beginning either way, and, again, none is
 required in M-Genesis. A couple of questions: By ‘advance’ or ‘advanced’ do you imply ‘better’? You use the words ‘for the good,’ without mentioning how this value-term may be defined. For me, each star being “different than another” is hardly evidence for ‘the good.’ Are you using ‘advanced change’ in cosmology to mean that ‘the universe’ is somehow ‘getting better’? You didn’t use the words ‘simple’ or ‘complex’ or ‘heterogeneous’ and ‘homogeneous’ (the latter representing Spencerian evolution, rather than Darwinian), but perhaps that is behind your cosmological evaluation of ‘the good’? It is interesting just how much Darwin did not approve of Lamark, but was a bit Lamarkian himself given that he too accepted inheritance of acquired traits.     I included those subjective terms because the ultimate purpose is very important to Genesis and M-Genesis.   Giving life to mankind is good, and even more so, eternal life is good.  If the processes, which were designed by God, produce good things then there is at least some good in them.  Darwin’s additional two tenets to evolution of natural selection and branching revealed that the process can be quite harsh, and there is a sense of judgment that comes upon the weaker varieties.  [Ironically, I understand it was some of the stauncher Christian literalists that favored Darwin in his day for this very reason;  Lamarkian was too sweet, I suppose.]   Of course, it is the religious perspective that says what is good and what is advanced, though science can say much about the efficacy of one process over another.   We quite probably see the subjective/objective dichotomy differently. Bringing Rene Descartes into play seems worthwhile in a discourse commonly dominated by reference to Sir Charles Darwin. Do you view natural philosophy as relevant to this conversation, given that what is today called ‘science’ was once considered as ‘natural philosophy’? Some people consider Aristotle an ‘evolutionist,’ yet there are many features of Aristotelian thought that are inconsistent with ‘evolutionism.’ Philosophy is lively important here as a bridge-crossing activity.   I see both religion and philosophy as regions of a grand realm that includes both subjective and objective territory.  Science has assigned its name to the objective and has learned that its effectiveness only comes by restricting itself to this region.  Of course, certain scientists feel compelled to use it to make subjective claims that science can not support.   Natural philosophy is almost an oxymoron for me, due to my lack of knowledge of it.  I have just started on McGrath’s “The Open Secret”, which addresses a more interesting topic of natural theology.   I don’t see natural philosophy having that much influence on M-Genesis, but this is another area where you and the others are needed, since it is still in draft form.   You write: “I am using evolution as a general term for advanced change, and not restricting it to biology. I am suggesting it is a wonderful and natural process that was planned from the beginning.” On what basis do you justify stretching the meaning of ‘evolution’ in this way? Why do you ‘transfer’ the concept ‘evolution’ outside of biology? Why not restrict ‘evolution’ to biology or to ‘natural’ things only? This would perhaps help to protect from the penetration of ideology into your ‘science.’   I don’t mean to usurp the word from biology but use what is known of it in other applications, though only in general terms.  The process of planetary and stellar formation is clearly a natural one and is becoming better understood now that telescopes are able to observer in greater detail the hundreds of examples of these formations in various stages.    What is striking is how an observer might describe some of these formations.  Since Genesis 1 seems to match such a description, it is logical to consider the possibility that a natural process (designed by God) was at work in our stellar and planetary “creation”.  The Earth could have been seen as “without form and void” when it was becoming a protoplanet.  The protosun’s accretion disk might easily have looked like an almost endless blue ocean.  The Sun might have been enshrouded up until the point when light burst from it … “and there was light”, and it was Day light, too.    Perhaps, as you said, using the word “evolution” may only obfuscate what M-Genesis is trying to say.   So, I will look for better words to avoid the confusion.   Again, just as it was with Iain Strachan, I don’t mean this to accuse you of ‘ideological science’ simply because you accept certain aspects of evolutionary theories. It is a simple thing to do to distance oneself from ideology, by openly rejecting those aspects of Darwin’s theory or of any other type of evolutionary theory that are not scientific, not theological, but rather ideological. I wonder why theistic evolutionists and evolutionary creationists seem hesitant to do so – but since I live outside of the American milieu, perhaps it is because people don’t want to be misquoted or called a ‘creationist’ just by rejecting anything ‘evolutionary,’ even the quite obvious ‘evolutionary ideology.’   My interest is the application of objective scientific theory and findings to scripture.  If both be true, neither can be wrong.  Yet, our interpretation of scripture can be a problem.  During Galileo’s day, Geocentrism was a big problem regarding scriptural interpretation, at least for Galileo (and somewhat for Bruno, though he really was a religious heretic).   Evolutionary theory is today’s challenge.   It is more difficult for many today as there are more than just a few vague passages that seem counter evolutionary views, as well as, billions of years of age for Earth and our universe.   M-Genesis does not attempt to compromise or bend things to fit.  It simply takes an open view of scripture on the basis of what science has learned that might apply to an eye-witness who was taken back into time, and who gave us an account of God’s creation.  M-Genesis is a very literal approach and, surprisingly, appears concordant with science.  That is why I present it to ASA.  [You haven’t seen much of the details of it, yet.]  I’m not bothered that most here are not literalists, but it will take an unbiased review to capture its merits and anomalies.   Perhaps you have seen arguments that ‘evolution’ is not synonymous with ‘change’. For most biologists, as far as my understanding of the community of scientists who are called (who call themselves) ‘biologists,’ there simply isn’t any change ‘planned from the beginning.’ I would hope a Christian biologist would disagree.  But, I do agree with you because you are speaking of the objective realm, which is science.  What is planned or what is good are subjective terms outside the purview of science.   If a rock falls on top of a rattlesnake that is about to strike one’s leg, is this just an issue of gravity?     Now, even if a small minority of voices would claim that ‘God creates using evolution’ or ‘evolution is God’s method,’ doesn’t do (hasn’t seemed to do) anything much to change the perception INSIDE the field of biology that there is no plan, no guidance, no teleology, and no purpose in biological change-over-time. The effort to influence the grammar of biologists to include such concepts may be commendable, yet little fruit seems to have come of it. I’d be glad to hear some counter-evidence to this claim if you can provide it.   I agree, for the simple fact that religion and philosophy are, again, outside the objective realm of science.  This is one big reason science works so well; its limitations are its strength.  Prior to Galileo, teleological views hindered scientific progress, and Galileo quickly realized this when he saw flaws in Aristotle’s claims.   And it may turn out that our cosmologies are more similar to each other's than the contrasting ways we view change, development, variation, differentiation, flux, adaptation and other such concepts that are not exclusive to being perceived ONLY within an evolutionary paradigm. Evolution is simply not a King or Queen theory in my books. Agreed, there may be some similarity as they are both processes, but to make them too analogous only confuses the point being made. “Coope”   btw, M-Genesis, do you have a good paper or on-line link about this?   It was presented in crude form in the following bible forum: (now archived)   http://bibleforums.org/forum/archive/index.php?t-54112.html   I have an incomplete outline of it I can send you (Word doc.).

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Sun Aug 10 16:55:08 2008