Does Science Validate The Book of Genesis?

Pamela - posted on 08/18/2010 ( 39 moms have responded )

1,496

104

41

Many of you here are agnostics or atheists. I'm curious what your thoughts are as you read through this article by Paul Hunting. Do you feel more solidified in your current beliefs? Or does this give cause to question, to think etc? (I'm not suggesting that you don't already think - many of you ladies offer up some great thoughts that I find quite intriguing:o)

"No matter how much money it spends, science cannot find any true empirical evidence for even an infinitesimally small "fundamental particle of matter." Yet they refuse to accept the only truly logical conclusion: that there isn't one!

The irony is that the deeper they look and the more they smash matter apart looking for fools' gold, the closer they get to validating what the wise ones have known for thousands of years.

Since the 1950s, developments in the scientific metaphor known as string theory have been repeatedly mirroring the Biblical metaphor known as Genesis. The latest experiments of the Large Hadron Collider are now validating what the Bible has been telling us through metaphor since 8,000 B.E. (Before Einstein), namely that the fundamental particle of matter, from which we and everything else is formed, is best described as a "sound energy."

Once again science confirms the illusive Theory of Everything in a way that the warring factions don't wish to hear -- because it could finally reconcile science and scripture. If they had the humility to see it, the Large Hadron Collider could satisfy all points of view in the creationism debate and herald a new beginning to the equally illusive ideal of world peace.

Trouble is, they can't.

Neither faction seems willing to look behind the ancient symbols telling us of the black hole, the Big Bang, gravity, the space-time continuum, evolution, the four forces of nature, the purpose of God, the destiny of man...

Instead we have an insoluble dilemma: either we believe an explanation of the creation that defies our intelligence, reason, physical evidence and valid scientific process, or we reject the scripture. And if we reject scripture, we have another dilemma: do we also have to reject the very idea of God, or can we somehow rationalise or compartmentalise the cognitive dissonance?

This dilemma masks the real problem. Since the council of Nicea in 325 CE, our entire culture, whether we be religious, scientific or atheist, has been deeply programmed with one archaic interpretation of the Bible. The arbitrary decisions made way back then by a seemingly well-intentioned Constantine were subsequently forced upon us under threat of torture, death, genocide and excommunication -- hardly conducive to freedom of choice, thought, belief and action. Yet now we can enjoy these freedoms, the terror of heresy remains imprinted on our very DNA.

The arguments between science and religion and between different sects of Judaeo-Christianity itself are creating such clamour that few people bother to look more deeply within the scripture to divine the lost meaning.

It's not hard to understand why. The Bible is written in a very powerfully hypnotic, metaphoric language. It lures us into taking it literally, but when we do, we are blinded to the true Word of God that is the source of light behind the shadows.

The function of a metaphor (or poem, drama, literature, art, music, etc.) is to express something beyond words to bypass the logical, words-and-thought-oriented left-brain. Who hasn't struggled to communicate a profound personal experience, only to find that words fail?

As children we believed in Santa Claus. As adults we see him as a metaphor for the spirit of joy and giving. We let go of the fairy tale once it's served its purpose -- if we're wise enough.

If we have the wit to let go the old beliefs about the Bible and seek behind the shadows to the source of light itself, it becomes apparent that science and scripture are not mutually exclusive but entirely complementary. As humanity evolves, in perfectly appropriate ways, so does our awareness of the emerging truth of God's message. Both science and scripture are using the exact same vehicle to bridge the gap between the knowable and the unknowable -- metaphor and symbology. The allegory, poetry and dream-like symbology of scripture are exquisitely mirrored by, say, the mystical qualities of quantum physics and mathematical symbols like zero and infinity, which also have no real definition, and which also can beguile us to take them literally.

Where the Bible says all things came forth from a formless void, science says all matter came from a black hole. Where the Bible says the Word (waters, sound, name, voice) of God created all things, science says all matter is composed of vibrating strings of energy, like the sounds made by a violin. The latest news from the neo-light-speed hadron collisions seems to confirm string theory, the Gospel of John and also Genesis in that the energy patterns the collisions form translate into musical sounds!

Open yourself once more to the mystical message in the first so-called "day" of Genesis 1:

In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth. And the earth was without form; and void. And darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters. And God said, Let there be light: and there was light. And God saw the light, that it was good: and God divided the light from the darkness. And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day.
After many years of deep study, contemplation, reflection and cross-referencing, here is what the symbols and metaphors are beginning to suggest to me. I'd love to know what they say to you:

In the beginning God created an image of Itself. It was the unmanifest essence of all life. God did not yet know what could be made manifest from Its creation. Its Spirit stirred the sound of God's voice and It uttered Its divine purpose -- 'Let me know who I really am': and the knowing began. And God saw Itself reflected in the positive energy; and divided the positive energy from the negative so Its spirit could flow. It gave the positive Its True Name and the negative It called Lucifer, the light bearer. And, as the dawn of knowing arose, it revealed the first pillar of light.
These new insights into the first "day" of Genesis awaken an ancient spiritual teaching that has been sleeping for many thousands of years. It's a portal to new understandings that transcend not only science but also religion".

MOST HELPFUL POSTS

Krista - posted on 08/19/2010

12,562

16

842

What I wonder is this: what is it about man that makes us so unwilling to just say "we don't know" and leave it at that? Obviously curiousity is a good thing, and has led to a multitude of scientific discoveries and philosophical theories. Curiousity, more than anything else, has advanced our species.

That being said, must we eradicate every single particle of mystery from our existence? Can we NEVER just say, "You know what? We're likely never going to know the answer to this, and that's okay." Everything has to be explained, either by science or by saying, "God did it."

What if it's neither? What if the ultimate answers out there are found not by man's science, and not by man's religion, but by something that our feeble little brains are completely incapable of even beginning to comprehend? What if we've been completely on the wrong track all this time and are nowhere even CLOSE to finding the ultimate answers?

So there.

Chew on that for awhile.

Pamela - posted on 08/19/2010

1,496

104

41

Honestly, I'm not even willing to say that the existence of God can be proved scientifically. We can't put God in a petri dish under a microscope nor can we observe him in the cosmos per se. Of course being who I am, I maintain that we can certainly experience him in all kinds of ways. I can certainly also point to the intricacy of everything - from the smallest cell (which is far more complex than we can even fully grasp) to the vastness of the entire universe, but that still doesn't fully satisfy in the empirical sense I suppose. So really, the question then of the existence of God is more philosophical than scientific. Science deals in (mostly) empirical fact (and the theories proposed are grounded in observable data - such as evolution. We can see on a micro level - it's not too hard of a stretch to see it on a macro level. Needless to say, this occasionally gets me into trouble as I am a Christian who thinks evolution is one swell idea. I plan on taking a class in evolutionary biology sometime soon - mostly because I think it's fascinating.

I agree, Sara, that science and religion - at their ideal best - are both attempting to answer the question that has plagued humanity since our first moment of sentience: how on earth did we get here? They approach the same question from different angles - but I honestly don't feel they cancel one another out. One does not disprove the other. Sadly, I also have to agree that too often, religious thinkers (I put myself in this category) do tend to box themselves in too much. A theology student once told me that we don't put God in a box; we put ourselves in the box - and I think that is very true. But I don't think we have to be that way. I don't necessarily think that just because I embrace God as a transcendent creator being that I immediately have to embrace (fully) any particular box - in other words, I don't have everything figured out. Why you could call me an agnostic Christian.:o)

Johnny - posted on 08/23/2010

8,686

26

318

Well said Jenny. Existence in and of itself is the most wonderful, magical thing possible. I don't require an extra imaginary being to make it all "make sense" for me. The mystery is part of the joy. I have no doubt that all could potentially be answered through science, I don't think we will ever achieve that, but it is possible. Science has the potential to disprove or prove the existence of a deity because science could prove how we all got to be. But I do agree with Pamela, the "why" is much more mystical and for me requires letting go of the "need to know".

Jenny - posted on 08/23/2010

4,426

16

126

For me, I believe we are an integrated part of the universe or we wouldn't be here. We are meant to be because we are here. When we aren't meant to be, we won't be here anymore. That is where my why questions begin and end, except for the mechanics of how it all fits together. It's all evolution baby.

Jenny - posted on 08/23/2010

4,426

16

126

You can not know something is real through faith. You can only KNOW something is real through science.



I'm also comfortable saying I don't know or, more accurately, I don't know yet. Our understanding of science will change until the end of time (or does that bring us back to the beginning again) and I'm ok with that. For one, we have only had solid use of computers since the '70's. We got a long way to go before we have even a shred of clue of what's going on in our universe, let alone how it started. I actually don't believe we'll ever figure out how it started because our puny primate brains can't comprehend it.

If you see this, leave this form field blank.
Powered by RESPECT not THUMPS

39 Comments

View replies by

Pamela - posted on 09/04/2010

1,496

104

41

Sorry Sarah, the claim that Darwin had a death bed conversion is an urban myth. He did not.

Isobel - posted on 09/03/2010

9,849

0

282

Even if science did prove that a God exists that created the Universe (and I don't think that it does), what would that have to do with the Bible??? why would all the other Gods be discounted?

Jenny - posted on 09/03/2010

4,426

16

126

Oh my mistake. If Darwin said that, evolution must be false. Well off to the bible store, see you gals later!

Sarah - posted on 09/03/2010

390

11

29

lol. You are silly....Darwin on his death bed confessed that he had made up the evolution, evolving hoax. Go read about it....lol

Jenny - posted on 09/03/2010

4,426

16

126

No evolving? Bwa ha ha ha!, silly girl.


http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/...
Brian Handwerk

for National Geographic News

Published September 1, 2010

Evolution has been caught in the act, according to scientists who are decoding how a species of Australian lizard is abandoning egg-laying in favor of live birth.

Along the warm coastal lowlands of New South Wales (map), the yellow-bellied three-toed skink lays eggs to reproduce. But individuals of the same species living in the state's higher, colder mountains are almost all giving birth to live young.

Only two other modern reptiles—another skink species and a European lizard—use both types of reproduction. (Related: "Virgin Birth Expected at Christmas—By Komodo Dragon.")

Evolutionary records shows that nearly a hundred reptile lineages have independently made the transition from egg-laying to live birth in the past, and today about 20 percent of all living snakes and lizards give birth to live young only.

(See "Oldest Live-Birth Fossil Found; Fish Had Umbilical Cord.")

But modern reptiles that have live young provide only a single snapshot on a long evolutionary time line, said study co-author James Stewart, a biologist at East Tennessee State University. The dual behavior of the yellow-bellied three-toed skink therefore offers scientists a rare opportunity.

"By studying differences among populations that are in different stages of this process, you can begin to put together what looks like the transition from one [birth style] to the other."

Eggs-to-Baby Switch Creates Nutrient Problem

One of the mysteries of how reptiles switch from eggs to live babies is how the young get their nourishment before birth.

In mammals a highly specialized placenta connects the fetus to the ovary wall, allowing the baby to take up oxygen and nutrients from the mother's blood and pass back waste. (See related pictures of "extreme" animals in the womb.)

In egg-laying species, the embryo gets nourishment from the yolk, but calcium absorbed from the porous shell is also an important nutrient source.

Some fish and reptiles, meanwhile, use a mix of both birthing styles. The mother forms eggs, but then retains them inside her body until the very last stages of embryonic development. (Related: "Dinosaur Eggs Discovered Inside Mother—A First.")

The shells of these eggs thin dramatically so that the embryos can breathe, until live babies are born covered with only thin membranes—all that remains of the shells.

This adaptation presents a potential nourishment problem: A thinner shell has less calcium, which could cause deficiencies for the young reptiles.

Stewart and colleagues, who have studied skinks for years, decided to look for clues to the nutrient problem in the structure and chemistry of the yellow-bellied three-toed skink's uterus.

"Now we can see that the uterus secretes calcium that becomes incorporated into the embryo—it's basically the early stages of the evolution of a placenta in reptiles," Stewart explained.

Evolutionary Transition Surprisingly Simple

Both birthing styles come with evolutionary tradeoffs: Eggs are more vulnerable to external threats, such as extreme weather and predators, but internal fetuses can be more taxing for the mother.

(Related: "Human Sperm Gene Traced to Dawn of Animal Evolution.")

For the skinks, moms in balmier climates may opt to conserve their own bodies' resources by depositing eggs on the ground for the final week or so of development. Moms in harsh mountain climates, by contrast, might find that it's more efficient to protect their young by keeping them longer inside their bodies.

In general, the results suggest the move from egg-laying to live birth in reptiles is fairly common—at least in historic terms—because it's relatively easy to make the switch, Stewart said.

"We tend to think of this as a very complex transition," he said, "but it's looking like it might be much simpler in some cases than we thought."

The skink-evolution research was published online August 16 by the Journal of Morphology.

Johnny - posted on 09/02/2010

8,686

26

318

Or just a small bit of evidence? Outside just what the bible says, that is.

Sarah - posted on 09/01/2010

390

11

29

God created the world in six days...not billions of years. There is so much scientific evidence to prove that God created the world. There was no Big Bang, evolving, or any other stupid idea that Darwin came up with lol

Tanya - posted on 08/26/2010

1,073

23

54

I think that the Large Hadron Collide is really misunderstood. I read another article about people coming back from the future to stop it form working.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/13/scienc...

Here is some more food for thought. Well the universe is infinite the number of possibilities are not. So at some point everything begins to repeat.

Pamela - posted on 08/23/2010

1,496

104

41

"Science helps us understand how the universe works. Faith, on the other hand (where there are other fingers), aims to teach us what our existence means."

Pamela - posted on 08/23/2010

1,496

104

41

Yes, I know through my own experiences with God that he is real - but I love science too much to lay it aside or disregard it. Science is our way to learn about the world and universe around us - we are wired to know how things work and even why things work the way they do. So science is a gift - as is faith.

[deleted account]

I know the Bible is real & God is real. I live through faith, I don't need scientific proof. :-)

Sara - posted on 08/20/2010

9,313

50

584

Cool, Pam.

I've been to the Very Large Array in New Mexico, that was prety freakin' cool. The photographs they get from those radio telescopes...wow.

Pamela - posted on 08/20/2010

1,496

104

41

So all that said, the bible is not a scientific text and should not be treated as such (by anybody - scientist or theologian; theist, monist, agnostic or atheist). When we attempt to force science to fit the bible and vice versa, something gets lost in the process. And science changes all the time - or more specifically our understanding and discoveries within the field of science changes. The same is true of our understanding of scripture as well...

Pamela - posted on 08/20/2010

1,496

104

41

I don't think scientists are trying to do anything like prove or disprove the existence of God. Regarding whether or not the bible should be taken literally, the early church fathers, while recognizing the value of scripture (too the point of seeing it as the "word" of God), they did not read it literalistically and in fact, warned Christians from doing so. From Wiki:

In the thirteenth century Thomas Aquinas, like Augustine, asserted the need to hold the truth of Scripture without wavering while cautioning "that since Holy Scripture can be explained in a multiplicity of senses, one should not adhere to a particular explanation, only in such measure as to be ready to abandon it if it be proved with certainty to be false; lest holy Scripture be exposed to the ridicule of unbelievers, and obstacles be placed to their believing."

Frankly I think that much of the current interpretation of scripture is far too literalistic and rigid. It gets us into trouble and works towards devaluing the bible itself. (By "us" I mean we Christians). The bible is an immensely valuable piece of literature that we can learn so much from. It can help us understand some of our journey (and that is what life is - a journey we are all on). One of the main reasons that many Christians tend to be so rigid is fear. Too often we are fear-driven and in that fear, we solidify our beliefs (and promptly put ourselves in a box) and refuse to think. In fact in some Christian circles, there is a certain scornfulness of thinking and dialogue that gets us no where.

Krista - posted on 08/20/2010

12,562

16

842

I agree with you, Sara. I highly doubt that scientists have an actual goal to disprove God. They're just looking for the answers and are following their own way towards them. I highly doubt they give religion a whole lot of thought.

And yeah, Sara...that'll always be a mind-bender. We can't grasp the idea that the universe is infinite, but we also can't grasp the idea of it being finite, because if it's finite, it implies that there must be something BEYOND that.

Sara - posted on 08/20/2010

9,313

50

584

I agree, but I still am caught up in the assertion by some that science is trying to somehow disprove God. I really disagree with that. I don't know of many scientists who have a goal of proving God doesn't exist, they're just simply coming from a different perspective to explain the mysteries of the Universe that doesn't include God. If it happens to contradict the Bible, well...

On a pain pill note, doesn't it ever just blow your mind to sit around and think that the universe is infinite? I can't even wrap my mind around that. Ever expanding, infinite, and we are such a small part of the overall picture. Whoa.

Pamela - posted on 08/19/2010

1,496

104

41

That being said, must we eradicate every single particle of mystery from our existence? Can we NEVER just say, "You know what? We're likely never going to know the answer to this, and that's okay." Everything has to be explained, either by science or by saying, "God did it."

I actually like this statement. I think it is important that we accept the unknowable...and live with the mystery. But at the same time, there is an indelible part of us that wants to know - it seems to be in our DNA, this desire to understand and even categorize. Of course, we're quite limited in doing that and I do think it's important that we recognize that. But there's no crime in it - until we take up our pitchforks and torches and shove it down another person's throat.

Krista - posted on 08/19/2010

12,562

16

842

Why do I now feel like we should put on some Sarah McLachlan and order in some chicken?

Johnny - posted on 08/19/2010

8,686

26

318

Actually Krista, you pretty much described my own personal philosophy to a tee. I suppose I do a lot of chewing & smoking. I really wonder about those people that are self-described "scientists" who are out there trying to prove god's existence. And not just god in general, but their specific god and their specific holy beliefs. I suppose they don't really understand the concept of faith.

Pamela - posted on 08/19/2010

1,496

104

41

Indeed. I have oxycondyn (because I had a procedure involving my uterus) which I haven't taken but could and then I could read your post Krista and SEE GOD:o).

I do however get your point. But what's interesting to me is how much of humanity seems to have this affinity towards knowing (and seeing) God. Curiouser and curiouser. We do seem to have some hardwiring in this department. Some of the neurological studies point to this...

Sara - posted on 08/19/2010

9,313

50

584

I have an ear infection and my doctor gave me pain pills. I was totally with you through that entire post.

Krista - posted on 08/19/2010

12,562

16

842

You would almost think that I had put SOMETHING in my pipe and smoked it, considering the impressive combination of philosophy, mysticism and utter bullshit that was in that post.

ME - posted on 08/19/2010

2,978

18

190

"the question then of the existence of God is more philosophical than scientific. "

Unfortunately, we Philosophers have also failed miserably where the question of God's existence is concerned...

Barbara - posted on 08/19/2010

537

19

42

Referring to the originating factor being sound, "the word" Om, etc is a common theme in many spiritual beliefs. I do think there is a certain amount of satisfaction to be derived from science proving that to be sort of true in a way. If that makes some people feel more secure in their belief in a God, then that's great for them.

Sara - posted on 08/19/2010

9,313

50

584

Jenny once made a point that since Atheists and agnositcs aren't the one's trying to prove God's existence, the burden of proof does not lay with them to prove that God does or does not exist, it lays with the believer. Science is not trying to prove that there is no God, I don't think that even enters into the equation. They are simply trying to find evidence to answer age-old question "How did we get here?" but from the perspective of science. I agree with Carol, "religious thinkers are only capable of thinking within the box that their religious views set out for them".

Krista - posted on 08/19/2010

12,562

16

842

I do agree with Hunting in that the Bible should be taken more metaphorically than literally. With regards to creation theory and if there are any parallels between science and Bible...hard to say. I don't think it's too much of an imaginative stretch to say that things began in darkness. But does that coincidence mean that religion is right and that there is an actual creator? I can't go quite that far.

To me, this is a case of a stopped clock being right twice a day. Just because there are some Christian theories and points that are correct, it still doesn't "prove" God.

Johnny - posted on 08/18/2010

8,686

26

318

And speaking of the large hadron collider. My husband is a physicist. His team was involved in building a portion of the accelerator which is used to smash the atoms. The only people who think that these experiments can be used to prove or disprove the existence of God are people who are already religious. Those who understand the scientific aspects of this experiment know that is impossible. And it is not at all the purpose of the facility. Again, another example of how religious thinkers are only capable of thinking within the box that their religious views set out for them.

Johnny - posted on 08/18/2010

8,686

26

318

It might convince me if there was any actual evidence, scientific analysis, or research included in this article. I find it funny when those who believe in the literal interpretation of the bible as fact attack science for lacking evidence and proof. And then they simply cite the bible as their provider of proof. Umm, yeah, not a winner.

I am an agnostic. But I have absolutely no doubts whatsoever that the bible is simply a work of fiction, or perhaps as they say in the movies today, "based on a true story". Which means that something like it sort of happened, but the story which is being told has had great liberties taken in its telling. Having read the bible, I found Genesis to be the book that was fictional. At least many of the others were like fairy tales, in that they were based on historical stories to begin with.

I find that religious thinkers fail completely to think outside their box. Their box completely contains of all their possible ideas. If the truth is in the bible, then that is the sum of all your potential ideas. It's a pretty small world view.

If you see this, leave this form field blank.
Powered by RESPECT not THUMPS

Join Circle of Moms

Sign up for Circle of Moms and be a part of this community! Membership is just one click away.

Join Circle of Moms