Day Age Theory- This view holds key understanding in its title: simply, a day equals an age. This view is based on the idea that the Hebrew word for day (yom) can be used for time periods other than 24 hour periods.[1] Also, commonly cited along with this view is 2 Peter 3:8 (ESV), “But do not overlook this one fact, beloved, that with the Lord one day is as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day.”
In all practicality, this view is flawed fundamentally at the basic hermeneutical level. Take, for instance, the passage in 2 Peter. This passage begins with “but” (δὲ). This means to understand the meaning of this passage, one must understand that it is in contrast with what Peter had previously said.[2] Peter is trying to convey that Christ and his judgment are coming with certainty and haste, not that one should make such a systematized decision on a separate creation theory.
Gap Theory- The Gap Theory theorizes a Gap between Genesis 1:1 and Genesis 1:2. An idea that God created then recreated (highly elementary summary, agreed). This theory will not have much discussion to be defended against Biblically simply because, “no verse in scripture talks about previous creation.”[3]
Theistic Evolution- understands the major flaw of Aristotle’s primum movens and simply uses God to fix this issue. Sadly, this view is completely irrelevant due to the fact the Bible says God created “according to their kinds” (Gen. 1:12, 21, 24, 25).
Framework Theory- Most intriguingly, the framework theory takes a much more creative approach stating that these days are literal solar days, but not necessarily 24 hours at length. As Lee Irons contends, “To insist on taking this picture literally is to miss the profound theological point—that the creation is not an end in itself but was created with the built-in eschatological goal of entering the eternal Sabbath rest of God Himself in incorruptible glory.”[4]
Irons’ statement reasons the Framework Theory in ways not presupposed naturalistically (a rarity, might I add). The interpretation of missing the eschatological rest is no doubt taken from Hebrews where the author exegetes Psalm 95:7-11. Rest is the eschatological eternal reality in which believers no longer work to fight from sin or work to earn salvation, typologically represented by God’s rest after creation. Making the literal 24 hour periods figurative in no way makes the eschatological Sabbath rest more valid. Melchizedek is mention in Hebrews 7:3 as “resembling the Son of God;” however, making Genesis 14:17-20 figurative in no way enhances that meaning. Figurative interpretation does not enhance typology.
Literal 24-hour Theory- this theory simply states that each creation day was a 24 hour period within a literal week. Discovering the biblical nature of this view takes a journey to where the same author of Genesis reflects on the creation week amidst the Decalogue. “For in six days the Lord made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that is in them, and rested on the seventh day. Therefore the Lord blessed the Sabbath day and made it holy” (Ex. 20:11). Now if one were to interpret the creation story as figurative, how is he to interpret this passage and the law that accompanies it?
Now all other theories account for a different time frame due to presuppositional problems. Naturalistic worldviews are for the majority to account for the birth of these opposing views using pointing to the problem of the scientific age of the earth. Most empirical apologists will doubt science’s ability to perceive these ages. This is admirable, but not necessary. As I have previously written, “God created all living things with the capability to bear fruit (HCSB, Gen.1.11, 22, 28). Which implies God would create with different ages … therefore not out of deceit, but omniscience and omnipotence does God create the universe with such age. The earth created with age out of His omniscience so that it may contain the correct nutrients to provide for all creation.”[5]
Not adhering to the literal view affects the Gospel. Other views leave potential for humanity outside of Adam’s seed given macroevolution. Adam acts as a covenant head for all of humanity federally and naturally. “For as by the one man’s disobedience the many were made sinners, so by the one man’s obedience the many will be made righteous” (Rom. 5:19 ESV). If the creation is not literal, how can this passage be taken literal? How can Adam be special in God’s image? How can redemption be taken literal? How can anything be taken as literal?
[1] i.e. Genesis 2:4, Job 20:28, Psalm 20:1, Proverbs 20:11, 21:32, Ecc. 7:14, Isa. 2:12, Joel 1:15, Zeph. 1:14
[2] Or in the very least, if δὲ be translated as “and” then a comparison ensues. Regardless, given this postpositive there is a connection to the previous passage.
[3] Wayne Grudem, Systematic Theology: an Introduction to Biblical Doctrine (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Zondervan, 1994), 288
[4] Lee Irons, The Framework Interpretation: An Exegetical Summary (Jan. 2000) pp. 7-11
[5] B. Jacob Fowler, Answer to Study Question Set 1 OT Survey (Fall 2011)
Christian Perspectives 
“Sadly, this view is completely irrelevant due to the fact the Bible says God created “according to their kinds””
If you study taxonomy you would know that all living things are in some sense the same “kind”. And “kind” has no specific meaning. Creationists read a lot into one word. They arbtrarily define “kind” as “species” when the term species when it could mean mammals or reptiles or animals will produce other animals, or eukaryotes (which includes plants, animals, insects, fungus and human beings) will only produce other eukaryotes. Darwin assumed “one or many” forms of life were initially created and then evolved, and said so explicitly in On The Origin Of Species.
LikeLike
Thank you for your comment! I appreciate the feedback. Now, I’m not attempting to read into a word, I’m simply trying to find out what the Biblical author intended by using the word “kinds,” (not “kind”, the plural is key) not infuse meaning from outside sources into it.
LikeLike
Why not try to figure out what it means by “let the earth bring forth”, which sounds a lot like evolution/abiogenesis.
LikeLike
“The earth created with age out of His omniscience so that it may contain the correct nutrients to provide for all creation.”
God can’t create a universe with nutrients in it without forging the geological evidence of billions of years of evolution, meteor impacts, erosion, volcanic activity, seasons etc? And how can you be so arrogant as to make such broad, sweeping, unsupported claims and not even put a “maybe” in front of them?
LikeLike
Well, my dear friend, I posted this work to spark good open discussion, not to make my self subject of libel. I do apologize, maybe I’m quite wrong. I’m largely ignorant on things. Due to my epistemological beliefs, I choose not to place a “maybe” in front of the statement. Please help me understand better why you think this statement is so terribly ill founded. Or better, explain to me what you believe on the origin and why. Thanks.
LikeLike
I don’t see what libel has to do with anything. And you epistemologically believe your own opinion is infallible? People tend to equate their interpretation of scripture of what pops into their head with god’s infallible word. The bible can be translated and interpreted so many different ways, and the things you’re talking about are not even explicitly stated anywhere in scripture. You’re using the bible as a mirror and calling what you see in it infallible.
And what I was saying is that the earth contains a detailed record of past events, like rings on a tree. A god that could create a universe from nothing would not need to forge many separate geological, genetic, fossil and cosmological records in order to create a universe with “nutrients” in it.
LikeLike
You say, “And you epistemologically believe your own opinion is infallible?” Nope, I don’t. The very definition of “opinion” means that it cannot be infallible. I believe what God is saying is absolute truth and can be discovered. Also, when writing a persuasive essay, when is someone to place “maybe” in front of an axiomatic thesis?
You say, “People tend to equate their interpretation of scripture of what pops into their head with god’s infallible word.” I agree with this statement. That’s why Hermeneutics is key.
You say, “The bible can be translated and interpreted so many different ways,” The Bible can indeed be translated in many different ways, but only one is true.
You say, “and the things you’re talking about are not even explicitly stated anywhere in scripture.” First we must define “things”. What I discussed in this essay were different theories of creation, then I set about argumentation for the one I find Biblical. And I used the Bible to defend why I think it’s Biblical. You quoted the Bible once to defend your view saying in another comment, “let the earth bring forth”. (Gen 1:24 et. al.) I have no idea what that means, but I do know right after that it says, “according to their kinds” which doesn’t sound like evolution (not abiogenesis for if God is the ultimate cause, He is living).
You say, “You’re using the bible as a mirror and calling what you see in it infallible.” What hermeneutic are you utilizing more efficiently? I’ll honestly be happy to try to fix my err if you would oblige to explain how my interpretation went flawed according to the scripture.
You say, “And what I was saying is that the earth contains a detailed record of past events, like rings on a tree.” I agree completely. This is part of the reason I hold to the view I do.
You say, “A god that could create a universe from nothing would not need to forge many separate geological, genetic, fossil and cosmological records in order to create a universe with “nutrients” in it.” I agree. He didn’t need to. His capabilities and desires do not account for reality. Christ is able and should due to His justice to destroy and condemn all sinners. God is love; in and of Himself is love. He loves his righteousness, his grace, his justice. Therefore he hates what goes against his righteousness: sinners (Psalm 5:5) All people should then be condemned to an eternity apart from their creator in hell. God didn’t need to save anyone, but again, “need” does not prove reality. In stead, the creator himself stepped into creation, the noumenological became phenomenological, born of a virgin, lived a perfect life. For our sake, he made him who knew no sin to become sin for us so that we might become the righteousness of God (2 Cor. 5:21). Christ was crucified, completely dead, placed in a tomb, resurrected. Why? Because the wages of sin is death (Rom. 6:23). Because I sin, I earn death. Makes sense. God didn’t need to do anything, but he died and resurrected so that the eternal death believers were supposed to earn was made void.
Your logic is as follows: Premise A: God is able to create universe out of nothing. Premise B: God would not need to forge many separate… in order to create a universe with “nutrients” in it. Conclusion: God did not forge… This is a deductive fallacy on ability vs. reality.
Also, I would not choose to use the word “forge”. This word has the connotation of making imitation. God did not create imitations of realities, for He’s the one who created everything. Nothing preexisted him; therefore what He would create, by nature, would be reality and not “forgery”.
Again, thank you for all you comments. I hope this discussion can bring us much closer to the meaning of the creation story.
LikeLike
“You say, “And you epistemologically believe your own opinion is infallible?” Nope, I don’t. The very definition of “opinion” means that it cannot be infallible. I believe what God is saying is absolute truth and can be discovered.”
You were stating an idea that was your own total speculation, it wasn’t even from scripture.
“Also, when writing a persuasive essay, when is someone to place “maybe” in front of an axiomatic thesis?”
Generally when something is completely unfounded and purely hypothetical it is considered improper and dishonest to state it as fact.
“It is an established maxim and moral that he who makes an assertion without knowing whether it is true or false is guilty of falsehood, and the accidental truth of the assertion does not justify or excuse him.”
– Abraham Lincoln
Evangelists do this all the time though.
“You say, “People tend to equate their interpretation of scripture of what pops into their head with god’s infallible word.” I agree with this statement. That’s why Hermeneutics is key.”
It’s still your opinion.
“You say, “The bible can be translated and interpreted so many different ways,” The Bible can indeed be translated in many different ways, but only one is true.”
And let me guess, you know which one?
“You say, “and the things you’re talking about are not even explicitly stated anywhere in scripture.” First we must define “things”. What I discussed in this essay were different theories of creation, then I set about argumentation for the one I find Biblical. And I used the Bible to defend why I think it’s Biblical.”
I singled out something that made no sense, was stated as fact and was not based on the bible.
Your argument is that god was not being deceptive by creating a universe which in so many ways appears old because it was necessary for it to have that appearance in order to have the proper nutrients for life. I pointed out that that is not the case, and you replied by accusing me of libel and saying that your idea was not in any way hypothetical and did not deserve a “maybe” in front of it.
“You quoted the Bible once to defend your view saying in another comment, “let the earth bring forth”. (Gen 1:24 et. al.) I have no idea what that means,”
Do you mean by statement or the scripture itself? And the idea that a god created the earth with the ability to produce life is probably as old as the idea of a god that creates life. After all ancient people saw life spring out of the ground and be produced by water all the time, which have the ability to produce and sustain living things.
“but I do know right after that it says, “according to their kinds” which doesn’t sound like evolution (not abiogenesis for if God is the ultimate cause, He is living).”
If you study taxonomy you know everything is in some sense the same “kind”. This is a chart showing the genetic and physiological relationship between all living things:
“You say, “You’re using the bible as a mirror and calling what you see in it infallible.” What hermeneutic are you utilizing more efficiently? I’ll honestly be happy to try to fix my err if you would oblige to explain how my interpretation went flawed according to the scripture.”
I don’t claim to have the right interpretation or a perfect translation, I don’t even think such a thing is possible with ancient texts. I do however think that truth is truth and if something is genuinely valid or true it isn’t true because it’s in the bible, it’s valid or true because it’s valid or true. If the bible said the sky is blue it wouldn’t be true because the bible said it, it would be true regardless. Truth is truth, and we should seek it any way we can. When we read the bible we interpret it based on ourselves, our biases, our culture, our values, which colors our conclusions which we then call infallible. It’s an indirect form of self-worship. If we want to truly seek truth we have to set ourselves and our beliefs and our ideas and our culture aside and try to see the world as it is without trying to make it conform to this or that preconception.
“You say, “And what I was saying is that the earth contains a detailed record of past events, like rings on a tree.” I agree completely. This is part of the reason I hold to the view I do.”
That doesn’t make sense to me.
“You say, “A god that could create a universe from nothing would not need to forge many separate geological, genetic, fossil and cosmological records in order to create a universe with “nutrients” in it.” I agree. He didn’t need to.”
The premise of your argument was that it was necessary. Now you’re agreeing that it’s not and ignoring the fact that that ruins your argument.
“His capabilities and desires do not account for reality.”
I also don’t think his capabilities and desires are even knowable.
“Christ is able and should due to His justice to destroy and condemn all sinners.”
Why? Would you kill everyone in the world if you could? Wouldn’t that be the definition of evil?
“God is love; in and of Himself is love. He loves his righteousness, his grace, his justice. Therefore he hates what goes against his righteousness: sinners (Psalm 5:5) All people should then be condemned to an eternity apart from their creator in hell.”
This is just psychology, primitive cultures reacted to floods and droughts and disease and war the way a frightened child reacts to being struck by a parent – they blamed themselves because it was easier to think they deserved the pain and fear and agony they were feeling then to feel victimized on top of it all. It’s a defense mechanism against the inner pain that comes with being treated unfairly. Most abused spouses do the same thing, they believe that if they had just gotten dinner ready on time or the house had been a little neater then their husband would be perfect. An atheist has the perspective of an outsider, and like you can see that the poor woman or poor child doesn’t “deserve” to be tormented an atheist can see that people don’t “deserve” an infinite punishment of any kind, what could we possibly do to deserve that?
“God didn’t need to save anyone, but again, “need” does not prove reality. In stead, the creator himself stepped into creation, the noumenological became phenomenological, born of a virgin, lived a perfect life. For our sake, he made him who knew no sin to become sin for us so that we might become the righteousness of God (2 Cor. 5:21). Christ was crucified, completely dead, placed in a tomb, resurrected. Why? Because the wages of sin is death (Rom. 6:23). Because I sin, I earn death. Makes sense.”
It doesn’t make any sense. It’s arbitrary and evil. It’s the ultimate “two wrongs make a right”. Imagine your mother or father comes up to you and says to you “You aren’t a perfect child and I decide you deserve to die for that – but it’s okay, because if you murder your brother then I will consider the debt settled” – what would your reaction to that conversation be? Would you say “makes sense”? Because it’s exactly the same logic.
“God didn’t need to do anything, but he died and resurrected so that the eternal death believers were supposed to earn was made void.”
Yeah, now we go to hell instead.
“Your logic is as follows: Premise A: God is able to create universe out of nothing. Premise B: God would not need to forge many separate… in order to create a universe with “nutrients” in it. Conclusion: God did not forge… This is a deductive fallacy on ability vs. reality.”
What is that supposed to mean? You said god had to make the universe the way it is in order for it to contain the proper nutrients, I said that that is not true. Then you agreed with me, but say that it doesn’t matter.
“Also, I would not choose to use the word “forge”. This word has the connotation of making imitation. God did not create imitations of realities, for He’s the one who created everything. Nothing preexisted him; therefore what He would create, by nature, would be reality and not “forgery”.”
If I make a false set of books that yields a detailed but inaccurate record of a company’s business that is dishonest. It may not be forgery but it is dishonest and misleading.
“Again, thank you for all you comments. I hope this discussion can bring us much closer to the meaning of the creation story.”
The stories in genesis are largely unoriginal, the same way any modern story is built on the themes, character types, literary elements etc that came before the stories and edicts in the bible are based on earlier texts like the epic of gilgamesh (noah’s flood), the code of hammurabi (golden rule, eye for an eye, tooth for a tooth etc). The adam and eve story even closely mirrors greek mythology of the era, zeus, mightiest of the gods, creates pandora, the first woman, who is given an object she is forbidden from using and eventually succumbs to temptation, thus unleashing all of the evil in the world.
LikeLike
Hopefully I can spell this out a little more clearly. I apologize, it’s tough to explain myself when I do not know your presuppositions. The main issue is that I believe God created the universe with apparent age. With my last comment I set out to make clear that he didn’t NEED (capitalized for emphasis), he simply did. That’s why I was trying to explain a deductive fallacy in that way. (i.e. “God is capable, he must do it that way; therefore he does it that way” is not what I’m arguing, but you seemed to think I was arguing that).
Now, God created Adam from the dust with an apparent age. He did not create an egg and sperm cell, but a man. Notice Genesis 2:7, “then the LORD God formed man of dust from the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life.” Though the man was only a second old, he would seem to be roughly 25 (more or less). The same principle was then applied to the rest of creation. He also created trees at an age to bear fruit (Gen. 2:16) and every animal would have to be created at a different apparent age due to their different life spans (Gen. 2:19).
Since I find it quite intriguing to come across someone with a nonChristian-theistic worldview I’m curious about a few things if you would be generous with an answer I would greatly appreciate it.
1. How do you account for origin?
2. If evolution is good science, why does it not still occur and why are there still less complex species?
3. What about entropy?
4. What about irreducible complexity?
5. What would be the purpose to life? (Would you be a materialistic determinist?)
6. What about human consciousness?
7. How should we account for the laws of nature and logic? i.e. can disorder beget order?
If you have an answer for one or any of these questions I would be happy to know. Thank you for your time.
LikeLike
“Hopefully I can spell this out a little more clearly. I apologize, it’s tough to explain myself when I do not know your presuppositions.”
I presuppose that my senses in some sense perceive reality as it is, which is the one assumption everyone must make. Beyond that I try to avoid assumptions as much as possible. Presuppositional apologetics is convoluted nonsense in my opinion btw, if that’s what you were alluding to.
“The main issue is that I believe God created the universe with apparent age.”
How is this different from someone on trial for murder saying that god created the universe five minutes ago with the appearance that they were guilty, but they were really not. God created those bloody fingerprints on the murder weapon and created all those witnesses with the *appearance* of having remembered him fleeing the scene covered in blood. How would that a) be reasonable at all and not simply be someone refusing to accept reality and b) how would that be honest of god?
“With my last comment I set out to make clear that he didn’t NEED (capitalized for emphasis), he simply did.”
I thought you were saying why he supposedly did, which didn’t make sense.
“That’s why I was trying to explain a deductive fallacy in that way. (i.e. “God is capable, he must do it that way; therefore he does it that way” is not what I’m arguing, but you seemed to think I was arguing that).”
I thought you were saying that creating a universe with the appearance of age was the only way to make a livable universe.
“Now, God created Adam from the dust with an apparent age. He did not create an egg and sperm cell, but a man. Notice Genesis 2:7, “then the LORD God formed man of dust from the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life.” Though the man was only a second old, he would seem to be roughly 25 (more or less).”
Well, according to a literal reading of the story anyway. I am not a theist but if I were I would not be a fundamentalist either. But playing along what if god gave him false memories and scars from events that never happened? Plus we’re talking about thousands of years of accumulated knowledge about the universe and it’s dynamics here, not just adam not having a belly button.
“The same principle was then applied to the rest of creation. He also created trees at an age to bear fruit (Gen. 2:16) and every animal would have to be created at a different apparent age due to their different life spans (Gen. 2:19).”
I understand the necessity of a wolf having to have a mother old enough to nurse it’s offspring but where is the logic behind fabricating dinosaurs and trilobites and 99% of life on earth in the form of fossils? There are more extinct creatures in the fossil record than there are alive right now. How does that make sense? There are 100 kilometer wide meteor impact craters on the surface of the earth, if those impacts had happened in the past few thousand years we wouldn’t be here having this conversation. Did god fake those too? We have pictures of galaxies in all sorts of stages of interaction and collision with other galaxies, due to the distance between stars the time it takes for these interactions is very long, we’re talking millions of years. Here for instance is an actual photo of two real galaxies (billions of stars) that have collided:
The bright cluster of stars is the core of each galaxy, one of them has smashed through the other one.
“Since I find it quite intriguing to come across someone with a nonChristian-theistic worldview I’m curious about a few things if you would be generous with an answer I would greatly appreciate it.”
Sure.
“1. How do you account for origin?”
I don’t. We know a lot about how the universe got to it’s present state, I can explain how the sun formed, why the earth is round, why the solar system works the way it does etc, we’ve put together several parts of the puzzle of how life began but that’s a hard nut to crack for many reasons, we understand pretty well how life got from simple organisms to the complex state we find it in today and as I said we have several detailed records of the process through history, each of these things take time to really explain though. As for the origins of the universe itself, matter and energy, I don’t know. There are some interesting experiments being done with vacuum energy which seem to have produced measurable particles and energy from nothing, but we don’t yet understand how that works. What I do know though is that I don’t have all of the answers, and not having all of the answers simply means I don’t have all the answers. I don’t know. You don’t either. Attributing things to god is like attributing lightning to zeus, it doesn’t give us any new understanding and creates more problems – where did zeus come from, how did zeus get the ability to make lightning, and finally what is lightning and how does zeus actually make it? The same is true of invoking yahweh – until you can explain how yahweh created anything (and where he came from) it’s not an answer. It’s like asking how a magician pulled a rabit out of his hat and getting the answer “he just did”. It doesn’t really explain anything. But in that case we at least know for sure there is a magician.
“2. If evolution is good science, why does it not still occur”
It does still occur, all the time. You don’t even have to read the latest science research, just open a newspaper, new strains of viruses pop up all the time, bed bugs are coming back because the pesticides we use don’t work on them anymore, bacteria acquire resistances to antibiotics and become super-bugs that are harder to kill, cancer adapts to both chemo and radiation treatments, materials like nylon that used to be non-biodegradable are now biodegradable, ie they can rot now in some places because local bacteria have evolved to use them as food. There is also a great deal of evidence and examples of human evolution. Why do you think europeans can tolerate alcohol more than native americans? Because europeans have been wiping themselves out with liver cirrhosis for a few thousand years, and natural selection favored those with a greater tolerance to the stuff. If native americans boozed for a few thousand years the same thing would happen. And so on and so on. I could keep going all day.
“and why are there still less complex species?”
First of all it depends what you mean by “less complex”, there are single-celled organisms with DNA 100 times as large as human DNA. Second evolution doesn’t make life more complex as a rule, it simply makes it better adapted to an environment. It will just as gladly destroy an eye as it will create one, which is why there are species with poor eyesight, non-functioning eyes or eyes with skin grown over them, such as fish that now live in depths where there is no visible light. Evolution is not, as many people assume a ladder from simple to human-like. And the simplest organisms are often the most successful – a germ might not be able to write a sonnet, but bacteria can survive on the surface of the moon exposed to the vacuum of space, without food, exposed to harsh radiation and huge daily temperature fluctuations for over a decade, any of which would rapidly kill you or I. Many species are in some sense superior to us.
“3. What about entropy?”
The argument you’re alluding to is a misunderstanding of the second law of thermodynamics which states that in an isolated system all matter tends toward disorder order over time. An isolated system is a system with no energy feeding into it. Another way of stating it is you need energy to build up the complexity of a system. In practical terms you need to eat for your body to repair itself, grow etc. You don’t eat and you die. Creationists ignore the “isolated system” part and interpret it as “nothing can ever get more complex, that is physically impossible”. But if that were true it would not just make evolution impossible, it would make life impossible, since a baby could not grow into an adult either. The argument is ignorant nonsense. No offense, I’m sure you didn’t come up with it.
“4. What about irreducible complexity?”
This blog of mine (on another site) explains irreducible complexity and how it was debunked (a long time ago). Creationist websites don’t care, they repeat things for years after they’ve been discredited.
http://agnophilo.xanga.com/728670894/evolution-and-irreducible-complexity/
“5. What would be the purpose to life? (Would you be a materialistic determinist?)”
I don’t know if I am a determinist because I don’t understand consciousness so I can’t exactly comment on whether free will exists. I think life is meaningful whether or not we have it. It’s not like not having the power to stop something painful from happening makes it hurt any less. I don’t see any particular purpose inherent in design, we don’t seem to have any absolute advantage over any other species, aside from our big brains. There are as many diseases, parasites, natural disasters etc that effect us as there are any other animal. Even the bible says man has no advantage over the animal (in the end of ecclesiastes 3). As far as I can tell the only purpose is human purpose.
“6. What about human consciousness?”
What about it?
“7. How should we account for the laws of nature and logic? i.e. can disorder beget order?”
Chaos theory says it can. It may be that chaos is unstable and has to produce order, the way a fire must eventually burn itself out or reach some kind of equilibrium, or the way if you throw a rock in a pond it will eventually return to a smooth surface. This is not caused by an absence of chaos, because we know that matter is a mass of conflicting forces, it is a result of those conflicting forces lining up the weakest to the strongest.
“If you have an answer for one or any of these questions I would be happy to know. Thank you for your time.”
I’d be happy to answer any questions you’d like to ask. It’s rare that a theist asks me questions anyway, they usually just want to talk at me.
LikeLike
1. The definition of “answer” is a spoken or written reply (well, according to dictionary.com, so really who knows hoe reliable that can be? haha). Therefore, we both would have answers. To the question of origin you say you don’t know and I would say God. God is still an answer no matter how ridiculous it may seem to you. You might be interested into looking at Lawrence Krauss’ book A Universe from Nothing. Krauss sets about to explain how nothing is actually millions of particles popping in and out of existence on a time scale too small to be seen. Now, I wouldn’t quite believe in those things; as Kant set out to explain causality in his agnostic works. Everything has a cause; therefore, I would argue that there would have to be an “uncaused causer” (such as Aristotle’s primum movens). Some materialists have argued for eternity of the universe. I would say that these things in the universe are currently subjected to time and there cannot be an infinite regression of time. The other answer I have seen is to say nothing is something as Krauss sets about to explain.(You can see him explain it here http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=7ImvlS8PLIo )
In conclusion, I would say we both have answers, my just sounds more logical to me; whereas, yours sounds more rational to you. I do applaud you for saying what you did, and not pull Dawkins’ alien theory. (Hopefully that theory exists to mock theists and he doesn’t truly consider it).
(This next paragraph is a lot more for myself than for you, you may skip over it. I had just never really thought through how and why I think what I think in this area). I’ll try to explain why I associate this with Yahweh and not Zeus. The Greeks understood transcendental realities (love, justice, truth, et. al.) and associated these realities with separate gods. Let me deconstruct myself a bit. I believe in a primum movens. What humans find greater than themselves they praise or give accolade. That primum movens must be divine due to the fact it transcends, is eternal, has all power in what it created, has knowledge about all it created. I believe I said true things about it. Then I would have to consider how a nuemenological would reveal itself phenomenologically. I would consider creation and revelations. Comparing Zeus and Yahweh, I think reality much more supports Yahweh.
2. I apologize, I meant macro evolution not adaptation. and the answer to the second portion makes complete sense, thanks.
3. Upon birth, things seem to be headed toward death. But you would argue that energy from food/ other things fuels evolution? I just think it’s odd that we have a law that states things move toward disorder, but evolution would claim the opposite, based upon several series of adaptations. Which leads me to question the fossil record. If all these things evolved over a long series of time due to adaptation, where is the evidence? Steven M. Stanley says in his book Macroevolution: Pattern and Process, “The known fossil record fails to document a single example of phyletic evolution accomplishing a major morphological transition and hence offers no evidence that the gradualistic model can be valid.” That quote might be a bit dated now, though.
4. Which leads to the next question on irreducible complexity. I read your blog on the topic, but I didn’t quite think you expounded upon the details of the theory enough. Irreducible complexity brings out the problem that because evolution takes a slow process through adaptation, why would one part of a complex whole develop when it’s function only makes sense as a part of the whole? You seem to explain away one example then throw out the whole theory. I would be happy if you would expound on it a little more.
5. The Bible states we have been created in the image of God (Gen. 1:26), also God created everything as good (Gen. 1:31). After what we call the “fall” (where Adam and Eve sinned, Gen 3), all mankind became subject to death just as the animals (Ecc. 3:18-19, cf. Romans 5:12, 8:19 ff.). A Bible says there is purpose in design, “he has saved us and called us with a holy calling, not according to our works, but according to his purpose and grace which was given to us in Christ Jesus before the beginning of time” (2 Tim. 1:9); or, “For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand, that we should walk in them.” (Eph. 2:10). I just always find it interesting to read naturalist who believe we have no purpose to the extent of having to create a “noble lie” so that people don’t go about killing themselves.
6. As in how would you account for human consciousness if it is immaterial. I know this is currently Daniel Dennett’s major work, so I was just curious of your thoughts on the topic.
7. Okay the formation of the laws comes from the Chaos theory. What about the sustenance of the laws? David Hume points out that we have no reason to believe that the law of gravity will continue to happen. I would argue God sustains laws of nature/logic/et. al. (Gen 8:22), but I was curious of your position. I know Stephen Hawking says something along the line of because there is a law of gravity, the universe can and will create itself out of nothing in his book The Grand Design pg. 180. What do you think about that statement? What do you think about the essence of law?
Thanks again for all the input. And I do apologize for the theists who merely talk at you. I think some theists may feel like a caged beast waiting to attack any who challenge mainly due to lack of belief in the sovereignty of God.
LikeLike
“1. The definition of “answer” is a spoken or written reply (well, according to dictionary.com, so really who knows hoe reliable that can be? haha). Therefore, we both would have answers.”
Dictionaries give superficial definitions, looking up “love” or “justice” in the dictionary will not illuminate such concepts, which can take a lifetime to define.
“To the question of origin you say you don’t know and I would say God. God is still an answer no matter how ridiculous it may seem to you.”
It’s a response, but it is not, to me, a meaningful answer to the question. Just saying “god” doesn’t give me any new information or allow me to understand anything more than saying “I don’t know”. If you asked me where the universe came from and I said “bob did it”, that would be a response to the question, but it would hardly be helpful. If there is a god I want to know what that thing is, where it came from (or it it didn’t come from anywhere how that works), and how it created the universe. “God did it” responds to a “how” question with a “who” answer. So does “allah did it”. Or bob, for that matter.
“You might be interested into looking at Lawrence Krauss’ book A Universe from Nothing. Krauss sets about to explain how nothing is actually millions of particles popping in and out of existence on a time scale too small to be seen. Now, I wouldn’t quite believe in those things;”
There are apparently experiments that demonstrate this, it seems “nothingness” is actually unstable and spontaneously produces “somethingness”.
“as Kant set out to explain causality in his agnostic works. Everything has a cause; therefore, I would argue that there would have to be an “uncaused causer” (such as Aristotle’s primum movens).”
Aristotle’s concept of the unmoved mover related to the puzzle of how we could have an infinite series of ancestors, and if I am not mistaken he left it unanswered as an open-ended question. Then thomas aquinas came along and took all of his observations and tacked “therefore the christian god exists” onto each of them. Aristotle also thought that smoke went up because “the gods want it to”. Anything we don’t understand we claim gods are responsible. But we’ve never actually understood something to the point where we can demonstrate how it works and manipulate it and found out gods actually were responsible for it.
“Some materialists have argued for eternity of the universe. I would say that these things in the universe are currently subjected to time and there cannot be an infinite regression of time.”
Time is just how we conceptualize relative motion, in some circumstances “time” as we think of it would be a meaningless concept.
“The other answer I have seen is to say nothing is something as Krauss sets about to explain.(You can see him explain it here http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=7ImvlS8PLIo )
In conclusion, I would say we both have answers, my just sounds more logical to me; whereas, yours sounds more rational to you.”
Your answer is: “??? being which I call god and which exists because of ??? created the universe and life by means of ??? and then revealed this to some people by means of ???”
My answer is : “???”
It contains as much verifiable information as yours, but far fewer assumptions.
“I do applaud you for saying what you did, and not pull Dawkins’ alien theory. (Hopefully that theory exists to mock theists and he doesn’t truly consider it).
There are various youtube videos and one documentary which mock him as believing in aliens when to my knowledge all he said was that an alien that produced life would be a better explanation because the complexity of the alien could be explained by darwinian evolution. In other words it would not be invoking a greater mystery in order to explain a smaller mystery of the exact same type, which is an obvious fallacy.
“(This next paragraph is a lot more for myself than for you, you may skip over it. I had just never really thought through how and why I think what I think in this area).”
Thanks for being open and honest about it. Most religious people hide their true feelings, never express doubts, feign absolute certainty etc, at least to me.
“I’ll try to explain why I associate this with Yahweh and not Zeus. The Greeks understood transcendental realities (love, justice, truth, et. al.) and associated these realities with separate gods. Let me deconstruct myself a bit. I believe in a primum movens. What humans find greater than themselves they praise or give accolade. That primum movens must be divine due to the fact it transcends, is eternal, has all power in what it created, has knowledge about all it created. I believe I said true things about it.”
This is just speculation from ignorance, I cannot pretend to know how things I don’t understand work. And to me the existence of a deity is not a foregone conclusion.
“Then I would have to consider how a nuemenological would reveal itself phenomenologically. I would consider creation and revelations. Comparing Zeus and Yahweh, I think reality much more supports Yahweh.”
It was an analogy, and any text, if you assume it’s contents are true seems compelling. I have no reason to take genesis literally or believe it literally (and many reasons not to).
“2. I apologize, I meant macro evolution not adaptation. and the answer to the second portion makes complete sense, thanks.”
You’re welcome : ) And macro evolution is well observed too, speciation (the splitting of one species into two similar species) has been observed in nature and made to happen in the lab, and “macro” changes occur by the same exact mechanisms and there is no reason why they wouldn’t (and we know they did from the fossil and genetic evidence which I will get into more below).
“3. Upon birth, things seem to be headed toward death.”
Yes.
“But you would argue that energy from food/ other things fuels evolution?”
It fuels life, the creationist interpretation of the second law would, if it were correct, preclude you and I from growing to our present age, let alone preclude evolution from happening.
“I just think it’s odd that we have a law that states things move toward disorder, but evolution would claim the opposite, based upon several series of adaptations.”
Again it says that if you leave some words out. In an isolated system matter tends toward disorder. The surface of the earth is an open system relative to the solar system. While it’s true that the universe may be seen as an isolated system, all this means is that eventually after untold trillions of trillions of years when the last star burns out and the last element decays life will be thermodynamically impossible. But for now it is irrelevant. If that doesn’t make sense I will put it this way. You have 10 hydrogen atoms in an isolated system. You fuse 4 of them together, making them into helium atoms, building up their complexity. But to do this you must consume one atom, breaking it down entirely into energy, so while the hydrogen elements are now helium and hydrogen and helium can form new molecules and the system has more potential for complexity, overall there is less complexity in the system over time. This is oversimplified but it is what is happening in the universe, the sun converts around 5 million tons of matter into energy every second, breaking it down entirely, which releases vast amounts of energy which we can use to build up chemical complexity (the sun uses some of that energy to build up complexity too, fusing hydrogen into helium etc).
“Which leads me to question the fossil record. If all these things evolved over a long series of time due to adaptation, where is the evidence?”
One google-search away. The earliest bats in the fossil record don’t have the inner ear structures for sonar. The earliest turtle fossils lack a shell, followed by ones that have a shell but can’t retract into it (they also have teeth, spiked tails and other traits not found in turtles today). There are sharks in the fossil record with teeth the size of dinner plates and tortoises the size of an SUV. There are whales with legs (some still have vestigial legs absorbed into their bodies and all whales and dolphins start to grow four limbs in the womb at some stage). We’ve got intermediates between dinosaurs and birds, fish and amphibians, amphibians and reptiles, reptiles and mammals, mammals and primates and other primates and humans. We’ve got fossils here and there, we’ve got fossils everywhere.
And creationists still claim we don’t have a single one.
“Steven M. Stanley says in his book Macroevolution: Pattern and Process, “The known fossil record fails to document a single example of phyletic evolution accomplishing a major morphological transition and hence offers no evidence that the gradualistic model can be valid.” That quote might be a bit dated now, though.”
It’s either dated or incorrect, but I can give you pictures of most of the fossils I have talked about without too much effort. I will if you want. And more.
“4. Which leads to the next question on irreducible complexity. I read your blog on the topic, but I didn’t quite think you expounded upon the details of the theory enough. Irreducible complexity brings out the problem that because evolution takes a slow process through adaptation, why would one part of a complex whole develop when it’s function only makes sense as a part of the whole?”
Because it’s function doesn’t only make sense as a part of the whole, that’s the whole point. Every stage is fully functional, that is the only way complex things can evolve. This is actually analogous to the way technologies develop because they must have some practical purpose at almost every stage or nobody will invest the time and effort into them. For instance no one would ever bother to invent the computer if it only worked after 40 years of development and hundreds of billions of dollars of investment. If, in other words you had to have a modern super-computer or nothing. But the technology was developed because even simple computers were useful, and more complex ones were better, and even more complex ones were even better and so on. The same is true of evolution, ID advocates say “what use is half an eye?” but it turns out half an eye not only is very useful, it’s found in nature today. So is a quarter of an eye and 3/4 of an eye, etc.
The idea that it’s all or nothing would, if it were true, be a serious problem for evolution, but we find over and over that in biology complex mechanisms are made of simpler ones cobbled together and modified. This concept in biology is called homology, the tendency of biological mechanisms on every level from organs to microscopic cell structures to be similar, both genetically and morphologically, to other mechanisms. Which is exactly how it must be if they evolved, and if common ancestry is correct.
“You seem to explain away one example then throw out the whole theory. I would be happy if you would expound on it a little more.”
I expounded a bit more, I can give more examples if you like. Let me know.
“5. The Bible states we have been created in the image of God (Gen. 1:26),”
It also says people speak different languages because god “confused” them to stop them from building a tower to get into heaven. Ask a language expert if this holds water. Or an astronaut for that matter.
“also God created everything as good (Gen. 1:31).”
Including the tree in the garden?
“After what we call the “fall” (where Adam and Eve sinned, Gen 3), all mankind became subject to death just as the animals (Ecc. 3:18-19, cf. Romans 5:12, 8:19 ff.).”
How many books with talking animals in them do you take as literal history?
“A Bible says there is purpose in design, “he has saved us and called us with a holy calling, not according to our works, but according to his purpose and grace which was given to us in Christ Jesus before the beginning of time” (2 Tim. 1:9); or, “For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand, that we should walk in them.” (Eph. 2:10).”
The bible says a lot of things.
“I just always find it interesting to read naturalist who believe we have no purpose to the extent of having to create a “noble lie” so that people don’t go about killing themselves.”
I’ve never met a naturalist who believed either of those things.
“6. As in how would you account for human consciousness if it is immaterial. I know this is currently Daniel Dennett’s major work, so I was just curious of your thoughts on the topic.”
I don’t account for it either way. Nobody understands human consciousness, at least not fully. It is one of the last real frontiers of science, mainly because you cannot take a brain apart to examine it without destroying it, and we are just now able to examine functional brains with scanning equipment.
“7. Okay the formation of the laws comes from the Chaos theory.”
The latter attempts to explain the former, the former does not come from the latter. The theory is the human idea, not the phenomenon it seeks to explain.
“What about the sustenance of the laws? David Hume points out that we have no reason to believe that the law of gravity will continue to happen.”
We also have no reason to believe it won’t. I no more need to imagine a god expending effort to sustain the universe than I do a god trying in vain to destroy it but not being strong enough to do so. This is like imagining atlas carrying the world on his back, an interesting concept but a total fantasy.
“I would argue God sustains laws of nature/logic/et. al. (Gen 8:22), but I was curious of your position.”
I do not accept the authority of any book to dictate truth. Especially not one so convoluted and mangled by time and politics (not to mention oral tradition) as the book of genesis.
I know Stephen Hawking says something along the line of because there is a law of gravity, the universe can and will create itself out of nothing in his book The Grand Design pg. 180. What do you think about that statement?”
It might be true, I don’t know enough about the last decade or so of physics discoveries to evaluate the claim.
“What do you think about the essence of law?”
I think it is a man-made assumption. Aristotle assumed that smoke went up because the gods willed it, now we know it’s because hot air is bouncing around off of other air more so it’s less dense, which makes the more dense air pulled down by gravity push it up like squeezing toothpaste out of the bottom of a tube. So christian monotheist scientists declared gravity to be a divine law given by jehovah who commands that the earth and other bodies should pull things toward themselves. Then an agnostic scientist discovered that it’s actually a byproduct of the curvature of space around massive objects. Now you sit here about to shout “so god decreed that space should be curved around massive objects!”
Is it just me or is there a pattern here? Do you see where this is going?
“Thanks again for all the input. And I do apologize for the theists who merely talk at you.”
You’re welcome, and thank you.
“I think some theists may feel like a caged beast waiting to attack any who challenge mainly due to lack of belief in the sovereignty of God.”
It is probably insecurity. And whatever baggage they’ve accumulated over the years. If religion is the lens they see every single thing in their lives through then every hangup they have will be in some sense religious – freud considered religion to be a “universal neurosis” for this reason.
LikeLike
I’m so sorry for the long time to reply! I stay pretty busy. Again, thank you for all your answers and insight. Could you provide me a reliable link or expound upon the “Chaos theory”? I want to try to pull the discussion down to one topic at a time (for selfish reasons, naturally I cannot spend as much time as I like conversing with you). What I’m trying to hit in particular is the principal of regularity. I, being a theist, believe Natural Law will continue because God sustains it. I commented on Hume’s critique of Natural Law (we have no reason to believe the universe will continue to operate in the way that it does). Now you replied in the opposite (we have no reason that the universe will not continue to operate in the way that it does). How do you know? All you said is that you didn’t have to rely on a deity; so, how what do you rely on? Past experience? That’s an irrelevant logical fallacy to rely on because what happens in the universe today does not necessitate what happens in the universe tomorrow. On what basis can you say there is any order within the universe (science is the study of regularities)?
LikeLike
“I’m so sorry for the long time to reply! I stay pretty busy.”
No worries.
“Again, thank you for all your answers and insight.”
Welc you : )
“Could you provide me a reliable link or expound upon the “Chaos theory”?”
I would just wikipedia it, I’m not well versed in it. As far as I know it’s just the principle that mathematically randomness produces patterns.
“I want to try to pull the discussion down to one topic at a time (for selfish reasons, naturally I cannot spend as much time as I like conversing with you).”
Alrighty.
“What I’m trying to hit in particular is the principal of regularity. I, being a theist, believe Natural Law will continue because God sustains it.”
Those properties existed and were regular for billions of years before anyone ever conceived of yahweh, to attribute them to him seems provincial. I often suspect that if there were a god our religions would be a sort of cargo cult.
“I commented on Hume’s critique of Natural Law (we have no reason to believe the universe will continue to operate in the way that it does). Now you replied in the opposite (we have no reason that the universe will not continue to operate in the way that it does). How do you know? All you said is that you didn’t have to rely on a deity; so, how what do you rely on? Past experience? That’s an irrelevant logical fallacy to rely on because what happens in the universe today does not necessitate what happens in the universe tomorrow.”
I don’t know, neither do you. You can believe whatever you like, but nobody knows the future. Even the bible says no one knows the hour or the day when the end will come. I don’t know a meteor won’t hit my house tonight while I sleep either. But unless I have some reason to think one will I’m not going to worry about it or factor it into my day. I don’t “rely” on anything in this regard, I take life as it comes. If the universe ends tomorrow it ends tomorrow. I don’t have a reason to think it will so I’m not worried. Should I be quaking in my boots or something?
“On what basis can you say there is any order within the universe (science is the study of regularities)?”
Direct observation, what else? The universe appears to operate the way it appears to operate. The challenge you are giving is tantamount to asking how do I know the sky will be blue tomorrow or next week or next year. Why shouldn’t it be? Of course I can’t be certain, but what’s the problem? It’s not like you can.
LikeLike
If the chaos theory is based upon mathematics chaos itself must be definable logically making it irrelevant to the conversation of natural law. It would presuppose some logical unity within the early “chaos” which would again beg the question, “why is it ‘sensitive to initial conditions, topologically mixing, and its periodic orbits are dense?'” (these three conditions come from wikipedia). It would also beg the question on how can we suppose mathematics on early matter? How can we account for mathematics?
I believe I have a completely credible answer: God is logical and orderly therefore I can utilize logic and order (science and mathematics) because God sustains logic and order. Naturalism bases epistemology off direct observation then denies supernatural and supranatural. The argumentation that one can know based on observations that cannot be observed why they are reliable seems self-defeating. The idea that one can form a “chaos” theory based on “mathematics” seems self-defeating. So you ask, what’s the big problem? Well you epistemology is fundamentally flawed. Shall we set up scientist and lots oh high tech computers to observe scientists making observations? Then who shall observe the scientists observing the scientists?
If everything is known based upon direct observation, are there things out there that haven’t been observed that exist? How can one discount what goes beyond the natural? It cannot be done; however, it is denied by many on a premise that doesn’t fit within their worldview. Then some will say, “we can’t know.” This statement is self-defeating in that you make a knowledge claim about something that cannot be acknowledged. Then some will say, “we don’t know,” and this is a completely admirable answer. What needs to be analyzed next is how things can be known. The problem with only testing truth based on direct observation is that no facts are self-interpreting. For example, I look at the Bible and directly observe logical consistency and historicity; you look at the Bible and see fallacy and folklore. We both directly observe the same facts with different outcomes. Therefore, mere direct observation cannot be trusted on it’s own accord.
LikeLike
“If the chaos theory is based upon mathematics chaos itself must be definable logically making it irrelevant to the conversation of natural law.”
It entirely depends what you mean by chaos.
“It would presuppose some logical unity within the early “chaos” which would again beg the question, “why is it ‘sensitive to initial conditions, topologically mixing, and its periodic orbits are dense?’” (these three conditions come from wikipedia).”
Beats the hell out of me.
“It would also beg the question on how can we suppose mathematics on early matter? How can we account for mathematics?”
Mathematics is man-made, like science it is a system we devised to represent and explain nature rather than being synonymous with nature itself, as people often assume. The “laws” are also limited man-made descriptions, not the properties themselves.
“I believe I have a completely credible answer: God is logical and orderly”
So your great explanation for how things can initially be orderly and logical is that there is a being that is orderly and logical for no apparent reason and makes things like that by extension? Are you now going to say that god has a god that has a god etc into infinity to “explain” the origins of god’s order?
“therefore I can utilize logic and order (science and mathematics) because God sustains logic and order.”
Logic is not something that needs sustaining, it’s an abstract concept. And you can say that god “sustains” things like gravity but that is like saying vishnu is actively making electrons have mass. It is arbitrary and unsupported and doesn’t get to the root of the problem.
“Naturalism bases epistemology off direct observation then denies supernatural and supranatural.”
I don’t discount the supernatural, I just think it’s a meaningless concept. No one has been able to explain to me the difference between a natural thing and a supernatural one. As far as I can tell “supernatural” is just what we call things until we understand them, but that is like “paranormal”. It’s a filler concept that merely describes our own (sometimes willful) ignorance.
“The argumentation that one can know based on observations that cannot be observed why they are reliable seems self-defeating.”
?
“The idea that one can form a “chaos” theory based on “mathematics” seems self-defeating. So you ask, what’s the big problem? Well you epistemology is fundamentally flawed. Shall we set up scientist and lots oh high tech computers to observe scientists making observations? Then who shall observe the scientists observing the scientists?”
What is the problem here, are you suggesting the scientists are lying or deluded? This is why experiments are repeated by other people. Any experiment that is valid can be repeated by anyone else.
“If everything is known based upon direct observation, are there things out there that haven’t been observed that exist?”
Almost certainly.
“How can one discount what goes beyond the natural?”
Such as?
“It cannot be done; however, it is denied by many on a premise that doesn’t fit within their worldview.”
I don’t reject anything, I simply seek to understand it and find some concepts are hollow.
“Then some will say, “we can’t know.” This statement is self-defeating in that you make a knowledge claim about something that cannot be acknowledged. Then some will say, “we don’t know,” and this is a completely admirable answer. ”
Why thank you.
“What needs to be analyzed next is how things can be known. The problem with only testing truth based on direct observation is that no facts are self-interpreting.”
This is what logic, debate and the scientific method are for (particularly predictions, tests and peer review).
“For example, I look at the Bible and directly observe logical consistency and historicity; you look at the Bible and see fallacy and folklore. We both directly observe the same facts with different outcomes. Therefore, mere direct observation cannot be trusted on it’s own accord.”
I doubt very much that our worldviews are based on the same information. If you think the bible is completely consistent and historically sound then I suspect there is a great deal of information you don’t have or don’t acknowledge.
And if the bible were held to the standard of other similar texts the miracle stories would be ignored automatically as mythology. Ancient figures are often claimed to be gods or more than human, especially beloved figures and leaders.
LikeLike