The Bible Beats the Anthropic Principle
The posts to date summarize a case that I put together in support of the idea that the scientific version of evolution meets the criteria for a good and useful theory of science in its explanation of the formation of the physical components and functions of living organisms. It is also clear to me that excluding God from this process excludes any hope for deriving meaning or purpose. So I do not agree with “evolutionists” who believe that evolution can explain everything about the origin of human beings. In addition, I choose by faith to accept that the Bible is free from error, and whether Genesis 1 and 2 are interpreted literally or figuratively, it is clear that God created. However, I believe he created us mostly by establishing a universe in which natural processes would allow development and evolution of life forms. Obviously, the soul, which is a supernatural entity, could not have been created by natural processes, but required direct action by God.
It is striking that the universe we know, including the conditions necessary for life, could not exist if any of the physical constants for gravity, strong and weak nuclear forces, electromagnetism were even slightly different from their current values. It is so improbable that this occurred by chance alone that scholars who do not believe in God needed an alternative explanation for it. Their explanation is referred to as the anthropic principle. In its simplest form, it states what seems to be an obvious observation. Since we are here to observe and measure the universe, the universe necessarily is the way we see it. However, some proponents (e.g., Tipler) of this theory take it further and conclude that our existence not only depends on the “fine-tuning” of physical constants, it actually is necessary for the existence of the universe. The reasoning for this conclusion is not intuitively obvious but is based on quantum mechanics. If this theory seems to have much in common with intelligent design, that is because it does! It essentially provides non-believers with a scenario in which humans have purpose. This purpose is really hollow though because it is based solely on human beings, and as imperfect finite creatures, we are not a sufficient reference point to provide meaning and purpose; God is. Speaking of intelligent design, some believe that this idea reconciles evolution and the Bible. However, the person who developed the concept of intelligent design (at least in its current iteration), Michael Behe, accepts evolution to explain the diversity and relationships among species. He invokes intelligent design only for the early events in the creation of life. The evidence from the fossils to the genome, is simply too convincing to ignore, even for the inventor of intelligent design.
The alternative to accepting some version of evolution is to believe that God tricked us by creating evidence of evolution for us to find. Of course, this is not consistent with God’s integrity, which the Bible indicates is an immutable part of His character. However, to be thorough, it seems advisable to imagine what would be required scientifically for an essentially literal reading of Genesis 1 and 2 to be correct and to determine if this would explain the disconcerting evidence for evolution. A major requirement would be that the laws of nature must have changed at the Fall. If death in the account of the Fall refers to physical as well as spiritual death and if human beings would not have ever died without sin, something fundamental must have changed. Interestingly, this would be consistent with Romans 8:20-22 which indicates that due to the Fall all of creation groans and experiences decay. However, in verse 20, there is an indication that man was created in this decaying state, although the wording introduces some ambiguity. If decay was not evident before the Fall, one possible scientific explanation would be that the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics was not in operation. At the molecular level, this Law states that in the course of any process (including life) the net disorder of the universe always increases. This describes decay quite well (dust is more disordered than a human being). However, nothing even remotely resembling the physical life that we now know would be even remotely possible without the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics. Virtually all the biochemical reactions that make life possible use or overcome the 2nd Law. However, this does not completely preclude the possibility that the original creation was altogether different and that God supernaturally caused life to develop without the 2nd Law. Even if this was the case, the evidence for evolution would still not be explained. Specifically, the ever increasing fossil and genetic evidence for early humans and Neanderthals (Science 314:1850) which are found in strata laid down long after strata containing dinosaurs would be inconsistent with a fundamental change in physical laws. Surely there would be a sharp change in the nature of the fossil evidence after the Fall if the 2nd Law suddenly took effect. However, there is no such evidence. We would still have the problem that God would seem to be deceptive. Would He have created such overwhelmingly convincing evidence for a process that did not occur? If so, how can we claim that He never deceives?
This question cannot be resolved without reconciling a limited version of evolution with the Genesis accounts of creation. As detailed in a previous post, the most reasonable first step would seem to be to try to understand the message or purpose in the apparently contradictory sequence of events in Genesis 1 and 2. The easiest and the most certain way to reconcile the conflicts is to propose that one or both chapters are intended literally, not figuratively. The writer of Genesis did not have even rudimentary scientific knowledge, and readers until very recently did not either. Therefore, a detailed scientific account would have been nonsense. It seems unreasonable then to regard Genesis 1 and 2 as a scientific account. I would suggest that it is analogous to the Apostle John’s descriptions of heaven and the end times in the book of Revelation. He was using human language and familiar objects to describe things that are beyond our understanding and imagination. Because of this, the literal and detailed prophesy for the end times has been interpreted in many different ways by many different people, and very few churches require conformity on this issue. I believe the text indicates that Genesis 1 and 2 should be regarded in a similar way. The writer was given images or words by God describing events of which the writer had no understanding. The accounts in Genesis suggest a similar process as used by John to describe his visions.
The posts to date summarize a case that I put together in support of the idea that the scientific version of evolution meets the criteria for a good and useful theory of science in its explanation of the formation of the physical components and functions of living organisms. It is also clear to me that excluding God from this process excludes any hope for deriving meaning or purpose. So I do not agree with “evolutionists” who believe that evolution can explain everything about the origin of human beings. In addition, I choose by faith to accept that the Bible is free from error, and whether Genesis 1 and 2 are interpreted literally or figuratively, it is clear that God created. However, I believe he created us mostly by establishing a universe in which natural processes would allow development and evolution of life forms. Obviously, the soul, which is a supernatural entity, could not have been created by natural processes, but required direct action by God.
It is striking that the universe we know, including the conditions necessary for life, could not exist if any of the physical constants for gravity, strong and weak nuclear forces, electromagnetism were even slightly different from their current values. It is so improbable that this occurred by chance alone that scholars who do not believe in God needed an alternative explanation for it. Their explanation is referred to as the anthropic principle. In its simplest form, it states what seems to be an obvious observation. Since we are here to observe and measure the universe, the universe necessarily is the way we see it. However, some proponents (e.g., Tipler) of this theory take it further and conclude that our existence not only depends on the “fine-tuning” of physical constants, it actually is necessary for the existence of the universe. The reasoning for this conclusion is not intuitively obvious but is based on quantum mechanics. If this theory seems to have much in common with intelligent design, that is because it does! It essentially provides non-believers with a scenario in which humans have purpose. This purpose is really hollow though because it is based solely on human beings, and as imperfect finite creatures, we are not a sufficient reference point to provide meaning and purpose; God is. Speaking of intelligent design, some believe that this idea reconciles evolution and the Bible. However, the person who developed the concept of intelligent design (at least in its current iteration), Michael Behe, accepts evolution to explain the diversity and relationships among species. He invokes intelligent design only for the early events in the creation of life. The evidence from the fossils to the genome, is simply too convincing to ignore, even for the inventor of intelligent design.
The alternative to accepting some version of evolution is to believe that God tricked us by creating evidence of evolution for us to find. Of course, this is not consistent with God’s integrity, which the Bible indicates is an immutable part of His character. However, to be thorough, it seems advisable to imagine what would be required scientifically for an essentially literal reading of Genesis 1 and 2 to be correct and to determine if this would explain the disconcerting evidence for evolution. A major requirement would be that the laws of nature must have changed at the Fall. If death in the account of the Fall refers to physical as well as spiritual death and if human beings would not have ever died without sin, something fundamental must have changed. Interestingly, this would be consistent with Romans 8:20-22 which indicates that due to the Fall all of creation groans and experiences decay. However, in verse 20, there is an indication that man was created in this decaying state, although the wording introduces some ambiguity. If decay was not evident before the Fall, one possible scientific explanation would be that the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics was not in operation. At the molecular level, this Law states that in the course of any process (including life) the net disorder of the universe always increases. This describes decay quite well (dust is more disordered than a human being). However, nothing even remotely resembling the physical life that we now know would be even remotely possible without the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics. Virtually all the biochemical reactions that make life possible use or overcome the 2nd Law. However, this does not completely preclude the possibility that the original creation was altogether different and that God supernaturally caused life to develop without the 2nd Law. Even if this was the case, the evidence for evolution would still not be explained. Specifically, the ever increasing fossil and genetic evidence for early humans and Neanderthals (Science 314:1850) which are found in strata laid down long after strata containing dinosaurs would be inconsistent with a fundamental change in physical laws. Surely there would be a sharp change in the nature of the fossil evidence after the Fall if the 2nd Law suddenly took effect. However, there is no such evidence. We would still have the problem that God would seem to be deceptive. Would He have created such overwhelmingly convincing evidence for a process that did not occur? If so, how can we claim that He never deceives?
This question cannot be resolved without reconciling a limited version of evolution with the Genesis accounts of creation. As detailed in a previous post, the most reasonable first step would seem to be to try to understand the message or purpose in the apparently contradictory sequence of events in Genesis 1 and 2. The easiest and the most certain way to reconcile the conflicts is to propose that one or both chapters are intended literally, not figuratively. The writer of Genesis did not have even rudimentary scientific knowledge, and readers until very recently did not either. Therefore, a detailed scientific account would have been nonsense. It seems unreasonable then to regard Genesis 1 and 2 as a scientific account. I would suggest that it is analogous to the Apostle John’s descriptions of heaven and the end times in the book of Revelation. He was using human language and familiar objects to describe things that are beyond our understanding and imagination. Because of this, the literal and detailed prophesy for the end times has been interpreted in many different ways by many different people, and very few churches require conformity on this issue. I believe the text indicates that Genesis 1 and 2 should be regarded in a similar way. The writer was given images or words by God describing events of which the writer had no understanding. The accounts in Genesis suggest a similar process as used by John to describe his visions.
posted by Stephen Pruett at 11:12 PM
4 comments
