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:
I am the anonymous seminary student who commented in your last thread several months ago. I hear what your saying and again I tenatively hold to a seven day creation. My issue with your present post is your reasoning for interpreting Genesis 1 and 2 like you would John's apocalypse. Apocalyptic literature was a form of literature in the 2nd temple Judaism. We have numerous examples of this kind of writing to compare to the book of Revelation. This kind of literature has distinctive characteristics and by comparing Revelation to other apocalypses we are given a key to it's interpretation. Because this writing style was well establised in the Judaism of the 2nd Temple period we can be aided in interpreting the obvious symbols and metaphors. The book of Genesis looks like narrative. Though the fossil record is difficult to reconcile with the narrative does this justify interpreting the book as something other than narrative? (I am really asking not arguing)
I am looking at the Greek of Romans 8:20 and your right some ambiguity exists but two of the best commentaries I have suggest that the futility the creation has been subjected to refer to Adam and his sin. (see James D.G.Dunn's commentary on Romans as well as Thomas Schreiner's) Paul has already stated in chapter 5 that death has come to all men because of the one man's sin. So this interpretation of 8:20 is consistent with the argument of the rest of the book.
I wrote this post very quickly. I am going to think about it more tomorrow and post my thoughts in a more readable way.
Anonymous, Good point. I did not express my thoughts on the relationship between Genesis and Revelation very well. I know they are different in style and that there are differences in the relevant non-biblical literature that may be useful in interpretation. The point I wanted to make is that the writer of Genesis could not have understood in a scientific way what God was either telling him or showing him about creation. Thus, he would not have written it in a scientific way. In science, the precise sequence of a series of events is critical, because it can be used to distinguish cause from effect. Genesis 1 and 2 are not written as though the writer is concerned about the sequence (I know some think these chapters were written by different people or relied on different sources, but I don't think this matters, because I believe it is all inspired). If he was, it would not be so difficult (in my view actually impossible) to reconcile the looser narrative in Chapter 2 with the more precise narrative in Chapter 1. Thus, I see the role of the writer of Genesis as similar to the role of John in Revelation in that both were given information or visions that were beyond their ability to completely comprehend or fully appreciate. Although much of revelation has the form of a narrative, we simply agree to disagree on which version of events seems most clear to us (dipensationalist, pre, post, a millenial, etc.). I do not think Genesis is fundamentally different in this regard and a similar attitude seems appropriate.
With regard to the passages about futility of creation, etc. and their relationship to sin, I am still not convinced that this refers to physical creation, but to spiritual creation. Death, at least, that entered with sin was spiritual. There is no explicit statement that physical death would not have occurred without sin, so I do not think the Bible is explicit on whether physical death would have occurred without sin. The futility of creation, the decay, and the groaning, could all refer to the spiritual side of creation. This is more in keeping with the extreme emphasis of the New Testament on spiritual themes and meanings. If there were explicit statements to the contrary, I would believe them, but I do not think there are. In that case, I cannot justify taking a position that opposes a huge body of very consistent physical evidence because an Interpretation of scripture, which requires certain assumptions and a particular line of reasoning, seems to oppose the physical evidence.
I think the situation is precisely analogous to the several passages that refer to the earth as being established such that it shall not be moved. The most direct and straightforward interpretation of these passages is that the earth is still and the sun, planets, and stars revovle around it. Yet only very very few Christians, even among the most conservative ones, believe this. Why? I suppose it is because the evidence for the heliocentric solar system is incontrovertible and anyone who denied it would look like a complete fool (and would have zero credibility when witnessing). What most conservative Christians do not understand is that the evidence for evolution is just a small smidge from being as strong as the evidence for a heliocentric universe. Unfortunately, the creation scientists have found williing ears who uncritically accpet their unfounded criticisms of evolutionary theory or the old age of the earth. When I taught in the Biology Dept. of an SEC Univeristy whose name you would know, there were three other Professors who attended the same Baptist church I did and were as conservative or more conservative. Guess how many of us believed creation science was correct? That would be zero. Guess how many of us believed that Genesis was completely true? That would be all of us.
In any case, I do look forward to your further comments after you have thought about the matter more, and I thank you for pointing out the lack of clarity in suggesting that Revelation and Genesis were similar in some ways.
Stephen,
I followed the link from Marty’s blog to your blog. You had some good comments on your post there.
As to evolution - I am not a scientist. Moreover, the various types of scientific areas or disciplines impacted by evolution appear to be very broad. As a result, it appears to me that to really be an expert such as to evaluate evolution would be difficult at best. I don’t have the time to try to study it all to be enough of an expert to make a well qualified opinion. This leaves me, and the vast majority of people, to evaluate the arguments of people making the case for creation or evolution.
Most of the people who argue for evolution seem to have a closed, rational system with no room for the supernatural. All things must be explained with a natural cause and effect. The scientific system seems to have no other way to operate. If you start with a system, however, that has no room for God, you will end with a system that has no room for God. Why should we be surprised by evolution?
The people who argue for creation most definitely start with a belief that the supernatural exists. This part of the equation is unprovable and requires a step of faith. It will always be at odds with those who hold to a closed, rationale system to explain “the beginning.” This assumption or faith beginning will almost never penetrate those who hold to a scientific, rationale view of the world.
Because “the beginning” can never be recreated, how can anyone prove what happened. Either way, there is a step of faith involved. In short, I don’t worry much about evolution.
A couple of points I would like to make. I believe God created the world - it is a faith matter. If I get to heaven and find out that it was seven literal days, it will not bother me. If I get to heaven and find that it was not seven literal days, again, I will not be bothered.
I will take issue with the point that God would be “deceitful” to make things look old (my rewording of your statement). God is not deceitful, but to measure God’s action by our limited human understanding of events is never right. Several times in the Scripture a writer argues with the readers who are saying that God is unjust. What appears unjust to us may be because our understanding is limited. [The same sort of argument is made that a loving God would not send someone to hell (not that you are making this argument), but it is the same basic rational of imposing our understand or measurement of right or wrong on God.]
One last comment – Several years ago there were a series of programs by James Burke, called the Day the World Changed, the Day the Universe Changed, and Connections. I forget which show it was, but Burke was discussing Darwin’s survival of the fittest. From it he traced robber-baron capitalism, fascism, and communism. It was an interesting comment from someone who, as far as I can tell, has no faith starting point.
Stephen, one request - use more paragraphs.
Thanks,
Jeff
Jeff,
Good points all. You are exactly right that science assumes and only deals with natural (not supernatural) explanations for evertything. However, this is not because of an effort to exclude the existence of God, it is simply an explicit recognitions of the limitations of science. Science does not exclude the possibility of supernatural explanations, but it is unable to deal with them, so they are ignored. In reality everyone, including Christians, does the same thing. No one I know steps out in front of a speeding car assuming that God will miraculously set aside the laws of nature to allow survival. Supernatural events are rare, or science would not even be possible.
Modern science has its roots in natural philosophy (philosophy of natural as opposed to supernatural events). This is why most scientists have a Ph.D. (Doctor of Philosophy) degree, even now. There is explicit recognition that the methods of only work for natural processes.
I think you are right though that it was almost inevitable that some scientists would take this further and propose that inability to deal with the supernatural is not a limitation of science, it is an indication that the supernatural (including God) does not exist. The first was T.H. Huxley, and from then on Christians felt a need to respond.
The important point is that these scientists are not serious philosophers (in the broad sense), and they have no real answers for philosophers who raise objections to their largely unfounded assertions. In other words, one does not have to invoke faith to point out that the conclusion of some scientists that the science indicates that the supernatural does not exist is not a well founded conclusions.
I agree that guessing God's motives and judging His actions to be deceitful is unwise and that there are biblical warnings about doing this. However, this is something that has occurred to many skeptical scientists and can be found on many of their web sites in opposition to creationism. I stand corrected and agree that it is not an appropriate arguement for a believer, but if we want to engage non-believers on this issue, it is an arguement with which we must be prepared to deal.
I fully agree with your last comment that accepting evolution and excluding God leads to a completely self-serving and uncompassionate ethos. My point throughout is that it is not necessary or even valid to use science (including evolution) to exclude God.
I believe that when we are able to see in full as opposed to in part, it will become intstantly clear that there is no conflict between nature when properly understood by science and God when properly understood.
The idea that there is some faith involved in accepting evolution because none of us were there when it happended is not the same thing as the faith required to believe in God. The "faith" involved in accepting evolution is really a manifestation of the confidence scientists (and the public in general) have in scientific methods of investigation of nature. One cannot live in present day America without being confronted with overwhelming evidence of the effectiveness of scientific methods of understanding and manipulating nature. I have problems with scientists who say it is "certain" that evolution occurred. Everything in science is provisional; all is subject to revision. Scientists who say otherwise are just mistaken.
This response is longer than it should be, but I just want to reiterate the reason I am concerned about this issue. Scientists and others who have learned about evolution understand that the evidence supports it quite well and it is a good theory. Therefore, when Christians assert (as many do) that one cannot really believe the Bible and still accept a scientific, provisional version of evolution which does not exclude God, we lose the ability to reach a large percentage of our population for Christ. This is not hypothetical. I work with people like this every day, and I promise you we have lost any opportunity to reach many of them by focusing on our perceived conflict between evolution and Christianity. I suppose the question I have for my fellow believers is: Are you so certain that your interpretation of the creation accounts in Genesis conflict with a provisional version of evolution that does not exclude God that you are willing to lose the ablity to engage a large percentage of our population on spiritual matters?
Post a Comment
<< Home