Science, and the appearance of age
Okay, I am giving up on the promisedspirit of inquiry/rebellion series. It's created a writer'sblock, and it's clogging up the pipes. I'm leaving it and movingon.
[If you know me, you know that whatreally happened isthat I forgot what I was going to say and simply can'tremember it. But I have to save face, somehow, so the writer's-blockdodge. Thankfully, most of you probably don't know me, so you won'tknow what reallyhappened to my promised-but-non-existent short series on the spiritof inquiry/rebellion.]
What is the primary argument of those who do not believe the Creation and fall account of Genesis1-3, but who do claim to be believers? It is not the so-called"figurative language" of Genesis 1-3. Believe me, the "figurativelanguage" does not miraculously appear until science backs you intoa corner. There's not much more straight-forward narrative inScripture than that of the first three chapters of Genesis. So whatis the primary argument of believing unbelievers?
The science does not support theGenesis account of creation.
Please forgive me if I am unimpressedwith this argument. It is the ultimate 'well, duh!' of thecreation debate. Of course science doesn't support the Genesis account, and what's more, itnever will! Science is not competent to passjudgment on the supernatural intervention of God, and whatever elsethe creation event might be, it is certainly that. One can not gofrom nothing—no matter, nospace, no time, no dimensions—to something (space, matter, time)without a little divine assistance. And science by definition doesnot do divineassistance.
God'sintervention in space and time is not predictable, not repeatable,and not falsifiable. Never was, never will be. You can not usescience to determine the age of the universe, because you are off therails of science when you go there. A creation event stands in the way, one that science is incapable of detecting.
Unless, of course, matter iseternal and God is not. But if you believe thatyou can no longer truly claim a belief in the God of the Bible.
But what about the many features ofthe cosmos that demand eons of time, such as radiometric dating,light from distant stars, and the geologic column?
Whatabout them? As believers, we clearly have two options: scientists aremaking assumptions about natural processes that are inaccurate, or at least, incomplete,and/or God created with the appearance of age.
God creating with the appearance ofage? That's silly! That's special pleading!
Oh,really? Silly, is it? Let's see how this works. If you were creating Adam, would you create himas a newly fertilized embryo, or as a fully functioning adult? Oh,wait, if you made him as an embryo he would need a womb in which todevelop. Oh, wait, if you need a womb, you need to create a sexuallymature woman. So even if you don't create Adam with the appearanceof age (Adam is an embryo), you must create something else which willnecessitate the appearance of age (an adult female—his momma). Soyou either create Adam with the appearance of age, or you have tocreate his momma with the appearance of age, or you have to drop theentire notion of creation and just admit that matter is eternal andGod is not.
If youtry to say that, well, God specially guided evolutionaryevents, including the development of the cell, all you have done isremand the problem to an earlier point in time, but you still ultimately windup with precisely the same problem (especially regarding themysterious bridge from the inanimate to the animate). You are still going to wind up with an appearance of age issue.
Thepoint is that any special creation whatsoever, at theorigin of life, will necessarily involve the appearance of age, evenif it is on a simple cellular level.No freshly created matter, organic or inorganic, at the point ofcreation is going to look likefreshly created matter. Rather, it is always goingto appear as though it has a past, so unless you want to make theclaim that God created nothing in order to get the current something,you are going to bump into the appearance of ageproblem.
This is even true in inorganics. Forinstance, suppose God creates any particle that has motion. We'llcall the time of creation n.Let's suppose you were an observer who came on the scene an instantafter creation, maybe at time n + 1.You could measure that particle's motion and then predict withcertainty its location at time n + 2.You could likewise predict with certainty that particle's locationat time n – 5. You'dbe wrong, of course, and never know it. You would not know that theparticle did not existat time n – 5. Why?Because the very regularity of its motion gives it the appearance ofage and erases any evidence of a beginning point.
Movewith me from a philosophical argument to a historical one. Did Jesusfeed multitudes from five loaves of bread? He did, in Luke 9. Whatwas required to feed five thousand people bread and fish? Answer?Lots and lots of bread and fish. But He had only five loaves and twofish. So what did he do? He obviously was creating bread and fish asHe handed it out. But wait! Bread has a history!Well, so do fish, for that matter, but we'll ignore them andconcentrate on the bread.
Wheredoes bread come from? Krogers, right? A bakery, right? So you have tobake bread. It takes—wait for it— time to bake bread. And the bread has to be made from dough. Where do youget dough? Flour, yeast, and mysterious things only my wifeunderstands (I don't cook, sorry). Where do you get flour from?It's ground-up wheat. It takes—wait for it— time to grind up wheat. And where do you get wheat from? Well, you have toplant a crop, and—wait for it—waitfor that crop to grow over an entire growing season. More time.Do you see the point? Wealready know that many of Jesus' miracles in the Gospels havethe appearance of elapsed time, or age.
Sounless you plan on throwing out Jesus' miracles in the Gospelswhile you are trashing Genesis 1-3, you are going to have to admitthat God has a clearly seen track record of making thingswith the appearance of age.
Andonce you admit that, the only problem with the Genesis account isyour refusal to believe it.
[If you know me, you know that whatreally happened isthat I forgot what I was going to say and simply can'tremember it. But I have to save face, somehow, so the writer's-blockdodge. Thankfully, most of you probably don't know me, so you won'tknow what reallyhappened to my promised-but-non-existent short series on the spiritof inquiry/rebellion.]
What is the primary argument of those who do not believe the Creation and fall account of Genesis1-3, but who do claim to be believers? It is not the so-called"figurative language" of Genesis 1-3. Believe me, the "figurativelanguage" does not miraculously appear until science backs you intoa corner. There's not much more straight-forward narrative inScripture than that of the first three chapters of Genesis. So whatis the primary argument of believing unbelievers?
The science does not support theGenesis account of creation.
Please forgive me if I am unimpressedwith this argument. It is the ultimate 'well, duh!' of thecreation debate. Of course science doesn't support the Genesis account, and what's more, itnever will! Science is not competent to passjudgment on the supernatural intervention of God, and whatever elsethe creation event might be, it is certainly that. One can not gofrom nothing—no matter, nospace, no time, no dimensions—to something (space, matter, time)without a little divine assistance. And science by definition doesnot do divineassistance.
God'sintervention in space and time is not predictable, not repeatable,and not falsifiable. Never was, never will be. You can not usescience to determine the age of the universe, because you are off therails of science when you go there. A creation event stands in the way, one that science is incapable of detecting.
Unless, of course, matter iseternal and God is not. But if you believe thatyou can no longer truly claim a belief in the God of the Bible.
But what about the many features ofthe cosmos that demand eons of time, such as radiometric dating,light from distant stars, and the geologic column?
Whatabout them? As believers, we clearly have two options: scientists aremaking assumptions about natural processes that are inaccurate, or at least, incomplete,and/or God created with the appearance of age.
God creating with the appearance ofage? That's silly! That's special pleading!
Oh,really? Silly, is it? Let's see how this works. If you were creating Adam, would you create himas a newly fertilized embryo, or as a fully functioning adult? Oh,wait, if you made him as an embryo he would need a womb in which todevelop. Oh, wait, if you need a womb, you need to create a sexuallymature woman. So even if you don't create Adam with the appearanceof age (Adam is an embryo), you must create something else which willnecessitate the appearance of age (an adult female—his momma). Soyou either create Adam with the appearance of age, or you have tocreate his momma with the appearance of age, or you have to drop theentire notion of creation and just admit that matter is eternal andGod is not.
If youtry to say that, well, God specially guided evolutionaryevents, including the development of the cell, all you have done isremand the problem to an earlier point in time, but you still ultimately windup with precisely the same problem (especially regarding themysterious bridge from the inanimate to the animate). You are still going to wind up with an appearance of age issue.
Thepoint is that any special creation whatsoever, at theorigin of life, will necessarily involve the appearance of age, evenif it is on a simple cellular level.No freshly created matter, organic or inorganic, at the point ofcreation is going to look likefreshly created matter. Rather, it is always goingto appear as though it has a past, so unless you want to make theclaim that God created nothing in order to get the current something,you are going to bump into the appearance of ageproblem.
This is even true in inorganics. Forinstance, suppose God creates any particle that has motion. We'llcall the time of creation n.Let's suppose you were an observer who came on the scene an instantafter creation, maybe at time n + 1.You could measure that particle's motion and then predict withcertainty its location at time n + 2.You could likewise predict with certainty that particle's locationat time n – 5. You'dbe wrong, of course, and never know it. You would not know that theparticle did not existat time n – 5. Why?Because the very regularity of its motion gives it the appearance ofage and erases any evidence of a beginning point.
Movewith me from a philosophical argument to a historical one. Did Jesusfeed multitudes from five loaves of bread? He did, in Luke 9. Whatwas required to feed five thousand people bread and fish? Answer?Lots and lots of bread and fish. But He had only five loaves and twofish. So what did he do? He obviously was creating bread and fish asHe handed it out. But wait! Bread has a history!Well, so do fish, for that matter, but we'll ignore them andconcentrate on the bread.
Wheredoes bread come from? Krogers, right? A bakery, right? So you have tobake bread. It takes—wait for it— time to bake bread. And the bread has to be made from dough. Where do youget dough? Flour, yeast, and mysterious things only my wifeunderstands (I don't cook, sorry). Where do you get flour from?It's ground-up wheat. It takes—wait for it— time to grind up wheat. And where do you get wheat from? Well, you have toplant a crop, and—wait for it—waitfor that crop to grow over an entire growing season. More time.Do you see the point? Wealready know that many of Jesus' miracles in the Gospels havethe appearance of elapsed time, or age.
Sounless you plan on throwing out Jesus' miracles in the Gospelswhile you are trashing Genesis 1-3, you are going to have to admitthat God has a clearly seen track record of making thingswith the appearance of age.
Andonce you admit that, the only problem with the Genesis account isyour refusal to believe it.
No comments have been added yet.
