The universe is now 6,000 years old.
Wow!! It's been around a long time. I think I said in my first-ever post that I have some fairly strong moral/philosophical views that may end up getting expressed on this here forum. The above-linked article is a good catalyst to get me started on creationism versus evolution. (Should I be capitalizing those?)
First off, the two are not mutually exclusive. From my perspective. Let me quote here from Obi-Wan Kenobi and say that, "Many of the truths we cling to depend greatly on our point of view." Everything I'll be saying here will be coming from that perspective, just so I don't feel obligated to keep repeating it. Nor should you feel obligated to swallow any of this for yourself. Why should your own opinion hold true to my own?
Now, Creationism and Evolution are NOT mutually exclusive. I think creationists are ignorant and narrowminded, blindly clinging to the 'truth' that has been spoon-fed them. AND I think that evolutionists are full of hubris from the scientific community having proved them 'right' and creationists 'wrong' that I find them nearly as intolerable. Both sides are wearing blinders, just of a different colour. I made a comment in a previous post about my reticence towards picking sides on very Black & White issues. This is one of the biggest, so colour me grey.
There is more than ample scientific proof here on earth that this little nugget of rock that revolves around our sun is several billion years old. The claim – deference given for the fact that it was made in the 1600s – that the earth has just this month turned 6,000 years old is completely ludicrous. Creationists and/or Flat-Earthers have their collective heads stuck so far into the sand that, no matter the volume of scientific inundation and reason, there is little to no point in trying to dissuade them from their views. (But the fun is in the argument, isn’t it?) I think that so much of this comes from the perceived threat that if there were any significant level of acceptance of evolution by creationist partisans, it would cast such a huge shadow of doubt on whatever religious dogma had heretofore been subscribed to by those creationists that Armaggedon-like chaos would inevitably ensue. If the world really is more than 6,000 years old, maybe Noah’s Ark needs to be investigated just a little bit more.
Similarly, evolutionists ought not be so caught up in self-congratulatory rhetoric as to think that they have it all right. (I use ‘they’ here though I consider my own thinking much more in line with evolution than creationism.) The age of the universe has been speculated – or loosely calculated – to be somewhere around 13 to 14 billion years old. This figure, to date, has fluctuated quite a bit and will continue to do so for quite some time, I think. Regardless, it is certainly a far cry from the figure of 6,000 derived from calculations made from the Bible. In comparison, our Earth is only approximately 4.5 billion years old.
I think that evolutionary theory has operated quite nicely outside the bounds of creationism for pretty much the full span of those 14 or so billion years. Where I see a breakdown or, God forbid, a marriage of both creationist and evolutionary thought, is at the point that started it all.
It has been generally accepted in scientific circles that the Universe and Everything in It started with the Big Bang. A single point of infinite mass and density that, for whatever reason, decided to experience what it was like to be a whole lot less dense in a big hurry. From what scientific reading I have done and no little personal introspection, I subscribe whole-heartedly to this theory. What science cannot explain is what happened for the first few teeny tiny instants immediately following that release. Or what led up to it.
This is where Science with a capital ‘S’ is showing a little more flexibility that most religious types. Normally, when things go BOOM on a cosmic scale, one of two things happens: 1. – the matter in question explodes with such ferocity that the material which was just packed into a tidy little area diffuses away from the point of explosion and nothing more comes of it. 2. – the matter explodes and radiates outwards, but such is the mass of the matter compared to the relatively (very important word here) small explosion, that it reaches a certain radius and then collapses back into itself. A black hole forming from an exploding star being a good example of this. So… Scientists have actually postulated that, assuming the Big Bang theory is correct, such was the precision with which the Bang took place in order for the universe to expand at just such a rate that galaxies and planets could form, that in itself lends credence to Divine Intervention. If it had exploded any more ferociously, the universe would have expanded too quickly for planets and suns to form from the dust. Any less intense, and the mass of the universe would have caused it to collapse back on itself and we wouldn’t need things like the internet since we’d all be living inside the same point singularity, jostling for elbow room.
This is what I believe happened. The universe is such a beautifully complex and simple place, governed by immutable and understandable Laws, that I do not for a second doubt the Hand of God being instrumental in its Creation. And such was the perfection of that instant of creation that God (or whatever name or moniker you wish to ascribe to a higher power) has not laid hands on it since. For what reason would God make something so imperfect that he/she/it would have to intervene on a regular basis to make it right again? This is where I think there is a necessary and unavoidable union of science and faith.
God gave us the most perfect playgroud inside of which to experience the All of it. He started it with a Bang and bestowed on us the two greatest gifts of all: Life and Free Will. Then stepped back and said, “Go!” The rest is up to us.
Let me also say that, inasmuch as I subscribe to evolutionary thought, it is very important to maintain an open mind and be willing to embrace change when a former way of thinking no longer works. One of the strengths of science is its constant struggle to prove itself wrong using the scientific method. So, given that I’ve never made a single calculation of my own to verify the age of the universe or whether or not the earth really does rotate around the sun and not vice versa, it would be exceedingly hypocritical of me to say that creationists have it wrong. I am taking the word of others for what I believe in much the same manner as did Archbishop Ussher when he calculated his figure in 1650.
Therefore, as much as I doubt I can be dissuaded from certain of my beliefs, neither will I attempt to dissuade you from yours.
This is certainly a much larger subject than can be encapsulated in a single blog posting, so would more than welcome any comments for debate.
1) Well, it isn't yet nailed down that the universe exploded Goldilocks-style, "just right". In fact, it looks like it's accelerating. They've even coined "The Big Rip" for the end of all things. They're doing a LOT of work closing in on it and I think we're a good 50-100 years from even establishing the "flatness" of the universe. Once we do, there's a whole mess of matter and energy that is completely unexplainable (All known forms of energy and matter only make up 2-5% of the energy and matter (they're interchangeable dontcha know) in the known universe!!!*)
*Yes, guessing how much energy/matter is in the whole universe is tricky but physicists had their minds blown so much by this revelation that they are going out of their way to nail it down and 2-5% keeps coming up. See Dark Energy
2) You're hovering very near to the Teleological argument. Beware, there be dragons here.
3) I owe another debt to wikipedia.
Posted by: fv | Tuesday, 26 October 2004 at 01:40 AM
One more: Anthropic Principle
Thanks for giving me an excuse to root through more Wikipedia (and lose even more sleep). If you have time, check out Cognitive Bias. There's even a list of 'em!
fv
Posted by: fv | Tuesday, 26 October 2004 at 02:13 AM
I would never go so far as to claim proof of divinity from a scientific basis. My intent was more to establish a potential union for scientific and esoteric thought. I'll not flirt with those dragons, I recognize it to be an exercise in futility. At least from my perspective.
Thanks for the list of links.
Posted by: Simon | Tuesday, 26 October 2004 at 07:08 AM