Let's move on!

[George Murphy]

This is NOT a thread for those who want to argue about whether evolution has happened or not!

There seems to be relatively little interest in the new Cosmogony 201 forum. Several reasons for this may be suggested, but one is that there's only so much that can be said about the possibilities for reconciling early Genesis with science. Without at all discounting the importance of Genesis, I suggest that Christians who take science seriously need to spend less of their time on that activity and more on thinking about the implications of cosmic & biological evolution for the way we proclaim the gospel and otherwise function as a church.

How do we reconcile the belief that God is active in everything that happens with the fact that we can understand 14 billion years of cosmic history pretty well with no reference to God? If humanity has evolved, how do we express the beliefs embodied in traditional doctrines of humanity's "original righteousness" and original sin? How should we speak about the salvation brought about by Christ in an evolutionary context? How do we deal theologically with intelligent life that has evolved in other places in the universe - if indeed it has? (We ought to be giving some thought to that now instead of waiting & playing catch-up when we get the 1st radio transmissions from ETs.) Can we make significant connections between scientific predictions about the cosmic future and traditional themes of Christian eschatology?

I don't mean to suggest that no one has addressed such questions before. I have tried to do so myself to some extent. But those are the issues we ought to be wrestling with. & I don't mean to dismiss early Genesis by saying that. Genesis provides important theological resources for dealing with the important questions.

Shalom,
George

[Solly]

Hi George.

Can 'traditional' doctrines survive in such an environment? Don't they end up becoming a 'mode of discourse' betwen people who speak the same theological language, but only of internal consistency. Doesn't religion become a language game then, with science providing the board upon which it is played?

[George Murphy]

Hi George.

Can 'traditional' doctrines survive in such an environment? Don't they end up becoming a 'mode of discourse' betwen people who speak the same theological language, but only of internal consistency. Doesn't religion become a language game then, with science providing the board upon which it is played?Not necessarily. It's true that there are people who go that route but it doesn't have to happen. It definitely isn't the case with the approach for which I've argued (see the opening post in "Deep Theistic Evolution" for a brief sketch) in which theology - and specifically, a theology of the cross - provides the larger context within which science is to be understood. Or think of John Polkinghorne's The Faith of a Physicist, which sounds as if it's going to be the kind of thing you describe but which is actually an exposition of the Nicene Creed by a Christian who is a physicist.

Shalom,
George

[shunyadragon]

Hi George.

Can 'traditional' doctrines survive in such an environment? Don't they end up becoming a 'mode of discourse' betwen people who speak the same theological language, but only of internal consistency. Doesn't religion become a language game then, with science providing the board upon which it is played?

By far the majority of scientist would avoid providing the board upon which religion plays the God game like the plague. Most scientists who belong to a religion or faith would not allow science to dictate their religious beliefs nor religion to dictate the results of their research and studies in science. The minority of scientists who allow this to happen take themselves out of the game.

I do believe that religion may provide guidance on how science is applied, but older religions appear to rather incompetent aaand divided on how they haandle this 'hot potato'.

[A Beautiful Truth]

Most scientists who belong to a religion or faith would not allow science to dictate their religious beliefs nor religion to dictate the results of their research and studies in science. The minority of scientists who allow this to happen take themselves out of the game.



Here is what bothers me. It may be possible that evolution of man took place, AND that the Bible is true, but I have not been able to get a firm grip on the two being true at the same time. I am open to this and would like to see the idea succeed, but I am still unsettled. I still do not believe a really satisfying explanation of the following is answered:

The Fall
The Garden of Eden
The Genealogies

I am open that the Fall may be understood in a "Federal Headship" sort of way, or that Adam was the first soulish creature and that his progeny interbreed with "the daughters of men" as some sort of explanation for gene diversity perhaps. Even George's idea that man evolved to the point that he became morally accountable and God enlightened them and they also became spiritually accountable. The Fall, in this regard, is understood collectively and the effects are bound in us all to the present.

Still trying to jive all this with my understanding of Romans. I must say that it is all very difficult. I think, perhaps, the Federal Headship idea is most palatable, as I have given this more thought.

Moving on, I am also open that the Garden of Eden may be understood symbolically perhaps in the same vein of understanding the book of Revelation. (The awareness of them being nude and ashamed has always bothered me, why would they be ashamed of their nudity?--just a question that may be best answered symbolically. Also the beauty of Gen. 2 seems adulterated if force fitted into a “correct” chronology. We also have the Tree of Life which is also in the Book of Revelation which is very symbolic, we also have the talking snake. The similarities between these early chapters of the first book with that of the last book, Revelation, requires more thought. I would very much like to discuss this further)

Of course these ramblings take us to serious theological questions. I agree with George, we need to continue to discuss such things. I must say that I appreciate an atmosphere where ideas and free to be thought without constant antagonism. I can’t say this forum has been completely rich in such an atmosphere, but I do hope this atmosphere will be worked on and encouraged by the participants here.

~Charleen

[George Murphy]

Here is what bothers me. It may be possible that evolution of man took place, AND that the Bible is true, but I have not been able to get a firm grip on the two being true at the same time. I am open to this and would like to see the idea succeed, but I am still unsettled. I still do not believe a really satisfying explanation of the following is answered:

The Fall
The Garden of Eden
The GenealogiesCharleen -

A comment on the last of these items. As you know, there are 2 genealogies given in Genesis 4 and 5, the 1st of the descendants of Cain & the 2d those of Seth. They are as follows using the English spellings in NRSV):

GENESIS 4 ************GENESIS 5



Adam *****************Adam



Cain ******************Seth



Enoch *****************Enosh



Irad *******************Kenan



Mehujael ***************Mehalalel



Methushael *************Jared



Lamech ****************Enoch



**********************Methuselah



**********************Lamech



**********************Noah

(The stars are just to keep the spacing. There's probably a better way.)

If you compare them you'll see that there are a number of similarities:
Irad-Jared, Cain-Kenan, Mehujael-Mehalalel, Methushael-Methuselah, & of course Enoch & Lamech occur in both. (OTOH Enosh is not as close to Enoch as these spellings make it appear. Enoch would be transliterated more exactly as chenokh & may mean something like "follower" while Enosh is 'enosh & means "human being." (I can't get the fonts to work right. The 1st Hebrew letter of 'enosh is aleph.)

It looks very much in fact as if what we have here is 2 different versions of the same genealogy. & while I think that some of these names do correspond to real people in Hebrew tradition, the fact that they are presented here as 2 different branches of the human race suggests that we don't have 2 historically accurate genealogical tables.

Of course there are various ways of trying to "fix" this. Maybe there really was only one line of descent - but that (among other things) would mess up the very old tradition that we have here a contrast between the evil descendants of Cain & the good descendants of Seth. (Cf. Augustine's City of God.) Or maybe these are old family names used in both branches of the family - but the only "old family names" extant at the beginning of both would be Adam & Eve. It seems more likely that we have here - as in Genesis 1 & 2 - two different traditions, which to some extent overlap, about early humanity.

Shalom,
George

[A Beautiful Truth]

Charleen -

...It looks very much in fact as if what we have here is 2 different versions of the same genealogy. & while I think that some of these names do correspond to real people in Hebrew tradition, the fact that they are presented here as 2 different branches of the human race suggests that we don't have 2 historically accurate genealogical tables...

...It seems more likely that we have here - as in Genesis 1 & 2 - two different traditions, which to some extent overlap, about early humanity.



George, I see that they *could* be different traditions, but I would need more. It may be more of a matter of "guilty until proven innocent" than actually wrong. Do you have any more information that made you come to your conclusion?

[lee_merrill]

Hi everyone,

About the geneologies in Gen. 4 and 5, why not just two distinct lines with some similar names? And as far as the fall, well, the fall had supernatural elements, are you asking for a naturalistic explanation, Charleen? And the garden of Eden was kind of supernatural, too, with those two special trees in the middle...

Blessings,
Lee

[A Beautiful Truth]

Hi everyone,

About the geneologies in Gen. 4 and 5, why not just two distinct lines with some similar names?

Sure, may very well be. I'd need to hear more to have enough information to be persuaded otherwise.


And as far as the fall, well, the fall had supernatural elements, are you asking for a naturalistic explanation, Charleen? And the garden of Eden was kind of supernatural, too, with those two special trees in the middle...

Blessings,
Lee

Lee,

I've been trying to understand this from every angle. If the theistic evolutionists can work this problem out, I'd like to consider it. I'd so love it if more theistic evolutionsts would explain how they handle the problem of sin. George has given it some thought, I'd like to see how the others handle it as well. (Glenn believes in an historical Adam and a literal Fall, but puts Adam back five million years)

I think we have to examine how exactly sin is transferred to humanity from Adam. Is it through Federal Headship, is it transferred in the body, or the soul, or the spirit? Is it more like a curse? Or is it that early Genesis is symbolic, similar to how Revelation is symbolic? But of what is it symbolic? Was man's innocent state symbolic of a time when man first became morally aware?

I can't say with certainty how early Genesis is to be taken. This is a topic all theistic evolutionists need to think about.

[George Murphy]

[In reply to lee_merrill's suggestion: "About the geneologies in Gen. 4 and 5, why not just two distinct lines with some similar names?"] Sure, may very well be. I'd need to hear more to have enough information to be persuaded otherwise.

The possibility that the agreement of names in the 2 genealogies is simply coincidence seems very unconvincing to me, though of course one can't strictly prove that this isn't the case. When a person has to appeal to such explanations the impression is given that one is just cobbling together whatever seems to work in order to maintain a pre-determined view of the nature of the biblical text.

[quote]I've been trying to understand this from every angle. If the theistic evolutionists can work this problem out, I'd like to consider it. I'd so love it if more theistic evolutionsts would explain how they handle the problem of sin. George has given it some thought, I'd like to see how the others handle it as well. (Glenn believes in an historical Adam and a literal Fall, but puts Adam back five million years)

I think we have to examine how exactly sin is transferred to humanity from Adam. Is it through Federal Headship, is it transferred in the body, or the soul, or the spirit? Is it more like a curse? Or is it that early Genesis is symbolic, similar to how Revelation is symbolic? But of what is it symbolic? Was man's innocent state symbolic of a time when man first became morally aware?

I can't say with certainty how early Genesis is to be taken. This is a topic all theistic evolutionists need to think about.Unfortunately the western theological tradition since Augustine has gotten locked into the idea that original sin must somehow be transmitted more or less as physical features are. (The common German word for original sin is Erbsuende, "hereditary sin.") That is largely in reaction to the Pelagian view that Adam's sin was not in any way passed on to his descendants, but that he simply set a bad example for them. Thus any kind of "environmental" view of original sin has been seen as essentially Pelagian.

I think that this is mistaken. It underestimates how much we are affected by our environment - or to say it better, how deeply we are relational beings. If a child is born into a culture which condones, practices and encourages various types of sinful attitudes and behaviors then something more profound is happening to that child than just a "bad example"
(in the ordinary sense) being set.

As I've suggested before, I think that the idea of original sin is best pictured as a process of the earliest humans getting off the path of development that God intended for them, & of their descendants following them farther and farther from the right path. (This is what the story sketched in Gen.3-11 suggests, & is the type of view one meets with some of the Greek Fathers.) That leads, among other things, to the type of culture that I spoke of, so that human beings born later no longer have any realistic natural possibility of "true faith in God and fear of God."

This is just a sketch and needs to be fleshed out - something I'm working on now in fact. But I think it's a more promising approach than any attempt to develop a quasi-genetic understanding of original sin.

Shalom,
George

[A Beautiful Truth]

The possibility that the agreement of names in the 2 genealogies is simply coincidence seems very unconvincing to me, though of course one can't strictly prove that this isn't the case. When a person has to appeal to such explanations the impression is given that one is just cobbling together whatever seems to work in order to maintain a pre-determined view of the nature of the biblical text.

You may be right but without further evidence, I cannot make a determination. I understand it may be a possibility.



Unfortunately the western theological tradition since Augustine has gotten locked into the idea that original sin must somehow be transmitted more or less as physical features are. (The common German word for original sin is Erbsuende, "hereditary sin.") That is largely in reaction to the Pelagian view that Adam's sin was not in any way passed on to his descendants, but that he simply set a bad example for them. Thus any kind of "environmental" view of original sin has been seen as essentially Pelagian.

I think that this is mistaken. It underestimates how much we are affected by our environment - or to say it better, how deeply we are relational beings. If a child is born into a culture which condones, practices and encourages various types of sinful attitudes and behaviors then something more profound is happening to that child than just a "bad example"
(in the ordinary sense) being set.

As I've suggested before, I think that the idea of original sin is best pictured as a process of the earliest humans getting off the path of development that God intended for them, & of their descendants following them farther and farther from the right path. (This is what the story sketched in Gen.3-11 suggests, & is the type of view one meets with some of the Greek Fathers.) That leads, among other things, to the type of culture that I spoke of, so that human beings born later no longer have any realistic natural possibility of "true faith in God and fear of God."

This is just a sketch and needs to be fleshed out - something I'm working on now in fact. But I think it's a more promising approach than any attempt to develop a quasi-genetic understanding of original sin.

Shalom,
George

Now, George, this is exactly what we need to discuss. I hope that you will make your forthcoming paper available when you complete it.


If a child is born into a culture which condones, practices and encourages various types of sinful attitudes and behaviors then something more profound is happening to that child than just a "bad example"
(in the ordinary sense) being set.

But say some parents decided to raise their children up in the mountains away from a culture which condones, practises and encourages various types of sinful attitudes? Would they still need redemption? Why?

The more I think about it, the more the idea of Federal Headship seems workable, perhaps.

George, I have been very interested in the idea of early Genesis being "apocalyptic". Have you considered it?

Here is a link perhaps you will take a look
http://www.audiowebman.org/bbc/books/ba/BA_index.htm

[Starkman]

I do not think the issue of sin is an ontological one. When Adam (and Eve) chose to disobey God's command to not eat of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, they were thrusted into a domain outside of unobscured relationship with God; Satan becomes the god of this world, hence his influence is immediate upon every child born. Everyone born in this domain is subject to the results of the Fall, whether they like it or not. So, Adam creates far more harm than just a proclamation given to him by God: "The day you eat of the tree...you die."

This is the crux of Romans chapter five, particularly the last section where Paul goes through that somewhat confusing escapade of Adam's sin is not like everyone else' sin, and vice versa. Come chapter six, the problem is rectified: We die to sin; we are translated out of its domain (Col 1); we are in Christ and not in the world anymore (the day will come when this body will be resurrected in order to both prove and complete this great truth).

This does not address the biological issues presented by evolution--how it all happened--but it represents clearly, I believe, the theological issue Genesis is trying to make.

Hoping to have contributed...

Starkman

[A Beautiful Truth]

Unfortunately the western theological tradition since Augustine has gotten locked into the idea that original sin must somehow be transmitted more or less as physical features are. (The common German word for original sin is Erbsuende, "hereditary sin.") That is largely in reaction to the Pelagian view that Adam's sin was not in any way passed on to his descendants, but that he simply set a bad example for them. Thus any kind of "environmental" view of original sin has been seen as essentially Pelagian.

I think that this is mistaken. It underestimates how much we are affected by our environment - or to say it better, how deeply we are relational beings. If a child is born into a culture which condones, practices and encourages various types of sinful attitudes and behaviors then something more profound is happening to that child than just a "bad example"
(in the ordinary sense) being set.

As I've suggested before, I think that the idea of original sin is best pictured as a process of the earliest humans getting off the path of development that God intended for them, & of their descendants following them farther and farther from the right path. (This is what the story sketched in Gen.3-11 suggests, & is the type of view one meets with some of the Greek Fathers.) That leads, among other things, to the type of culture that I spoke of, so that human beings born later no longer have any realistic natural possibility of "true faith in God and fear of God."

This is just a sketch and needs to be fleshed out - something I'm working on now in fact. But I think it's a more promising approach than any attempt to develop a quasi-genetic understanding of original sin.

Shalom,
George

George, I've highlighted what I'd like to discuss. Yes, hereditary sin, but how is the question. As far as the "environmental" explanation, that concerns me as in my last post to you when I questioned "what if" a Christian couple raised their kids high in the mountains away from the sinful attitudes of the culture? Would they be in need of redemption? Why? This is why I don't think the "further and further" off the right path works. There seems there could logically be an exception. The sin of Adam must affect us all with no logical exceptions. So the question I don't think is adequately answered yet. How is Adam's sin transferred if not with a literal Adam?

George, do you take Paul as inspired when it comes to theology? More directly, do you take Paul's theology of Romans 5 and 8 as truth?

~Charleen

[George Murphy]

George, I've highlighted what I'd like to discuss. Yes, hereditary sin, but how is the question. As far as the "environmental" explanation, that concerns me as in my last post to you when I questioned "what if" a Christian couple raised their kids high in the mountains away from the sinful attitudes of the culture? Would they be in need of redemption? Why? This is why I don't think the "further and further" off the right path works. There seems there could logically be an exception. The sin of Adam must affect us all with no logical exceptions. So the question I don't think is adequately answered yet. How is Adam's sin transferred if not with a literal Adam?Thanks for pressing me on this question & stimulating my thinking. The view I've suggested here is a suggestion, a model, & thus it isn't surprising that it needs some fine-tuning (or perhaps even coarse-tuning). Let me respond to your example & question with 3 points, sort of in increasing order of importance.

1. In your example we're not talking about a feral child but one raised by parents who, while Christians, are still sinners. Thus some of that environmental effect is still present.

2. Human beings are in a fundamental sense relational: "It is not good that the man should be alone" &c. There's a little German proverb, "Ein Mensch, kein Mensch" - one man, no man. This isn't to deny that we are individuals but we are either individuals in relationship or distorted and incomplete individuals. Thus the very isolation of the child in your example is likely to stunt his or her humanity.

3. What I've said about an environmental concept of original sin of sourse doesn't mean that genetics is unimportant. It's crucial for who we are as biological entities and there are probably very strong genetic components of our behavior. It's the very fact that evolution would have given the first humans genetic makeups that would result in strong dispositions to selfishness, promiscuity, deceit and violence that would have made "getting off the road" so easy. & we still have, in large part, that same genetic makeup.

But the fact that we have dispositions for sinful behavior doesn't mean that we have to do sinful things. It is the fact that our social environment to some extent encourages - or at least doesn't discourage - the acting out of those dispositions that makes sin inevitable.

I hope this is helpful. I know it's still incomplete.


George, do you take Paul as inspired when it comes to theology? More directly, do you take Paul's theology of Romans 5 and 8 as truth?Yes, Paul's writings in the Bible are inspired. & the distinctly theological things that he says there are true. Those truths are, however, accomodated to some of the ideas that Paul held together with his culture - e.g., that there was a single first human being, Adam - which are questionable today.

Shalom,
George

[scordova]

Greetings Dr. Murphy,

This is my first post here. I very much respect your schooling in Physics, and have read your various works.

I am a non-dogmatic Young Earth Creationist after previously being an Old Earth Darwinist. My undergraduate background is in Math, Electrical Engineering, Physics, Computer Science, Music. I graduated from George Mason University and am currently an extended studies student of Cosmologist James Trefil hoping to enter a Masters and PhD program. He has co-authored books with orgin of life researcher, Harold Morowitz, who also teaches there.

At GMU 3 of the faculty have publicly rejected the Big Bang, the most notable a PhD from MIT in physics by the name of Menas Kafatos (I believe he is an eternal universe advocate).

I'm not so sure that the scientific evidence has yet refuted a 24-hour day reading of Genesis days. I'm open to an Old Earth interpretation, but when secular scientists put speed of light decay on the table, I began to have a change of heart 2 years ago. I have at Access Research Networks debated geologists and biologists including Denis Lamoureux and Wesley Elsberry (at his website) and became more convinced on YEC over the last year in the process of the discourses.

In regards to cosmological eschatology, the presumption of an old universe suggests long term stablilty. However under young universe model, we could be in store for some surprises, that is the fabric of the universe is coming apart. There has been a possible monotonic increase in super nova.

Unlike many YECs, I was brought up in the catholic church, was an Old Earth Darwinist. I eventually joined Francis Shaeffer and Os Guiness's denomination, the Presbyterian Chruch in America. Physicist David Snoke is an elder in that denomination.


Then I nearly became an agnostic in 2000 until I began studying the empirical data. After which I became a convinced Creationist with 99% OEC leanings. But then a couple or so years later, I began pondering the possibility of YEC. For example, Albert Michelson's measurements throughout his life suggest a monotonic decrease in speed of light. I'm not so sure we can just write these sort of empirical measurments off as experimental error. James Bradley's abberation method in 1740 and subsequent measurements are very suggestive of an exponential decay in speed of light.

Various unification theories suggest variable speed of light, and we have some corroboration from secular scientists that this could indeed be the case. I'm not so sure science has refuted Young Earth, especially viewing some of the rebellion by credentialed secular scientists against the Big Bang. Speed of light decay would also radically affect radiometric dating.

Then the developments at www.mantleplumes.org (http://www.mantleplumes.org) were predicted by creationists for decades. Old Earth theories violates principles of thermodynamics. Again, from purely empirical grounds I have come to believe YEC is a viable scientific hypothesis independent of any religious texts. The independent scientific verification of YEC will naturally lead to a theological interpretation. If we keep insisting YEC is wrong, we might be overlooking potentially the greatest scientific discovery of all time....

Lastly, it was one of your posting on the web that alterted me to the possiblity that the Universal Wave function might require collapse by God. I think that is a very reasonable scientific hypothesis -- that some Being in the future is actualizing today's reality trough his observation at the end of time. So actually, I think the scientific evidence, as time progresses may be approaching the views of traditional cherished doctrines. In a sense, the traditional views may be prophetic of where science will eventually go.

I think open inquiry is in order.

regards,
Salvador T. Cordova
IDEA club founder at GMU

[rogero]

Greetings Dr. Murphy,

This is my first post here. I very much respect your schooling in Physics, and have read your various works.

I am a non-dogmatic Young Earth Creationist after previously being an Old Earth Darwinist. My undergraduate background is in Math, Electrical Engineering, Physics, Computer Science, Music. I graduated from George Mason University and am currently an extended studies student of Cosmologist James Trefil hoping to enter a Masters and PhD program. He has co-authored books with orgin of life researcher, Harold Morowitz, who also teaches there.

At GMU 3 of the faculty have publicly rejected the Big Bang, the most notable a PhD from MIT in physics by the name of Menas Kafatos (I believe he is an eternal universe advocate).

I'm not so sure that the scientific evidence has yet refuted a 24-hour day reading of Genesis days. I'm open to an Old Earth interpretation, but when secular scientists put speed of light decay on the table, I began to have a change of heart 2 years ago. I have at Access Research Networks debated geologists and biologists including Denis Lamoureux and Wesley Elsberry (at his website) and became more convinced on YEC over the last year in the process of the discourses.

In regards to cosmological eschatology, the presumption of an old universe suggests long term stablilty. However under young universe model, we could be in store for some surprises, that is the fabric of the universe is coming apart. There has been a possible monotonic increase in super nova.

Unlike many YECs, I was brought up in the catholic church, was an Old Earth Darwinist. I eventually joined Francis Shaeffer and Os Guiness's denomination, the Presbyterian Chruch in America. Physicist David Snoke is an elder in that denomination.


Then I nearly became an agnostic in 2000 until I began studying the empirical data. After which I became a convinced Creationist with 99% OEC leanings. But then a couple or so years later, I began pondering the possibility of YEC. For example, Albert Michelson's measurements throughout his life suggest a monotonic decrease in speed of light. I'm not so sure we can just write these sort of empirical measurments off as experimental error. James Bradley's abberation method in 1740 and subsequent measurements are very suggestive of an exponential decay in speed of light.

Various unification theories suggest variable speed of light, and we have some corroboration from secular scientists that this could indeed be the case. I'm not so sure science has refuted Young Earth, especially viewing some of the rebellion by credentialed secular scientists against the Big Bang. Speed of light decay would also radically affect radiometric dating.

Then the developments at www.mantleplumes.org (http://www.mantleplumes.org/) were predicted by creationists for decades. Old Earth theories violates principles of thermodynamics. Again, from purely empirical grounds I have come to believe YEC is a viable scientific hypothesis independent of any religious texts. The independent scientific verification of YEC will naturally lead to a theological interpretation. If we keep insisting YEC is wrong, we might be overlooking potentially the greatest scientific discovery of all time....

Lastly, it was one of your posting on the web that alterted me to the possiblity that the Universal Wave function might require collapse by God. I think that is a very reasonable scientific hypothesis -- that some Being in the future is actualizing today's reality trough his observation at the end of time. So actually, I think the scientific evidence, as time progresses may be approaching the views of traditional cherished doctrines. In a sense, the traditional views may be prophetic of where science will eventually go.

I think open inquiry is in order.

regards,
Salvador T. Cordova
IDEA club founder at GMU
Salvador,

I'll let the very competent and articulate Dr. Murphy answer your comments if he chooses. Just one comment from me, have you run your idea of a decaying c by Dr. Trefil yet? I wonder what his opinion is?

Here's an interesting statistical analysis of the historical data on the purported decay of c: http://www.asa3.org/ASA/topics/Mathematics/PSCF6-93Pennello.html#A%20Statistical%20Test

R

[shunyadragon]

Greetings Dr. Murphy,

This is my first post here. I very much respect your schooling in Physics, and have read your various works.I do see the respect you casually mention.


I am a non-dogmatic Young Earth Creationist after previously being an Old Earth Darwinist. My undergraduate background is in Math, Electrical Engineering, Physics, Computer Science, Music. I graduated from George Mason University and am currently an extended studies student of Cosmologist James Trefil hoping to enter a Masters and PhD program. He has co-authored books with orgin of life researcher, Harold Morowitz, who also teaches there.

I think open inquiry is in order.

regards,
Salvador T. Cordova
IDEA club founder at GMUFor a first post this is an incompetent duzzy! All these views are based on the fact that you blindly believe in YEC. If your physics background taught you anything it would be the simple logic that because of the sun and the internal energy of the earth there a million or more times the enregy available for evolution, therefore the Law of thermodynamics is not an issue.

Total blind incompetence cannot be compensated for by ten academic degrees.

[George Murphy]

Greetings Dr. Murphy,

This is my first post here. I very much respect your schooling in Physics, and have read your various works.Thank you. I'm glad you've found them interesting.


I am a non-dogmatic Young Earth Creationist after previously being an Old Earth Darwinist. My undergraduate background is in Math, Electrical Engineering, Physics, Computer Science, Music. I graduated from George Mason University and am currently an extended studies student of Cosmologist James Trefil hoping to enter a Masters and PhD program. He has co-authored books with orgin of life researcher, Harold Morowitz, who also teaches there.

At GMU 3 of the faculty have publicly rejected the Big Bang, the most notable a PhD from MIT in physics by the name of Menas Kafatos (I believe he is an eternal universe advocate).Some confusion can arise here over just what is meant by "big bang" (BB)& by "rejecting it." The basic meaning of the term is that the present expansion of the universe (which no cosmologist I know of doubts) can be traced back to a state in which the universe was much hotter and denser than it is today.
Detailed studies of the redshift-distance relation, the microwave background and abundances of light nuclei give extremely strong support for this model with a time of about 14 x 10^9 years since the beginning of the expansion.
In this sense I think it extremely unlikely that the basic BB model will ever be overturned. The fact that we still don't understand the nature of much of the material content of the universe (dark matter & dark energy) does show that this model still needs a lot of fleshing out.

Now whether or not the cosmological models of general relativity that provide a pretty good description of the universe in the current epoch continue to provide such a good description when we try to extend them back before the hadron era is quite another matter. It may indeed be that some sort of eternally oscillating universe or multiverse will turn out to provide a better model. But this would not mean rejecting BB but extending it. (My 1st published paper in physics that was titled "Big Bang Model without Singularities" [Physical Review D8, 4231, 1973] dealt with such a model.)


I'm not so sure that the scientific evidence has yet refuted a 24-hour day reading of Genesis days. I'm open to an Old Earth interpretation, but when secular scientists put speed of light decay on the table, I began to have a change of heart 2 years ago.There is no scientific evidence at all that points to formation of the earth, the celestial bodies, and the major biological groups described in Gen.1 in 24 hour days. The change in c that would be required to bring any of the relevant astrophysical data into accord with the time scale required for a traditional YEC model would long ago have shown up in laboratory data.


I have at Access Research Networks debated geologists and biologists including Denis Lamoureux and Wesley Elsberry (at his website) and became more convinced on YEC over the last year in the process of the discourses.I don't know Elsberry very well. Denis is a good friend of mine & while we don't agree on all matters, I have great respect for his technical knowledge of both scripture and paleontology, as well as his Christian faith. I think you should take his arguments very seriously, being aware that he's come to his views from a previously very strong YEC position.


In regards to cosmological eschatology, the presumption of an old universe suggests long term stablilty. However under young universe model, we could be in store for some surprises, that is the fabric of the universe is coming apart. There has been a possible monotonic increase in super nova.No, an evolutionary universe, as in BB models, is not "stable." One would, among other things, expect a variation in SN incidence:


Unlike many YECs, I was brought up in the catholic church, was an Old Earth Darwinist. I eventually joined Francis Shaeffer and Os Guiness's denomination, the Presbyterian Chruch in America. Physicist David Snoke is an elder in that denomination.A few years ago Snoke published an article titled "In Favor of God-of-the-Gaps Reasoning" in Perspectives on Science and Christian Faith (Sept.2001).
I found it appalling and pointed out several basic problems in a letter in the March 2002 issue of PSCF. I strongly suggest that you don't get your theological guidance from him, at least not in matters related to science.


Then I nearly became an agnostic in 2000 until I began studying the empirical data. After which I became a convinced Creationist with 99% OEC leanings. But then a couple or so years later, I began pondering the possibility of YEC. For example, Albert Michelson's measurements throughout his life suggest a monotonic decrease in speed of light. I'm not so sure we can just write these sort of empirical measurments off as experimental error. James Bradley's abberation method in 1740 and subsequent measurements are very suggestive of an exponential decay in speed of light.rogero has already given a link on this matter. I think you are leaning on a very weak reed if you base belief in a young universe on a supposed change in c.


Various unification theories suggest variable speed of light, and we have some corroboration from secular scientists that this could indeed be the case. I'm not so sure science has refuted Young Earth, especially viewing some of the rebellion by credentialed secular scientists against the Big Bang. Speed of light decay would also radically affect radiometric dating.Yes, it's possible that c changes. There were some recent suggestions for a variation in the fine structure constant but evidence for that seems to have disappeared. In any case, such changes would be significant only on time scales on the order of the Hubble time and would in no way point to a universe with an age much less than that.

I already pointed out that it's not accurate to speak of "rebellion" against BB.
This is the same type of thing that anti-evolutionists do when they cite something like Gould & Eldredge's idea of punctuated equilibrium as rebellion against evolutionary theory while it's really an attempt to refine evolutionary theory.

& yes, changes in c would change decay rates. But it would change rates for different decay processes in different ways, and would thus produce detectable anomalies which, as far as I know, haven't been seen. But radiometric dating isn't my specialty.


Then the developments at www.mantleplumes.org (http://www.mantleplumes.org/) were predicted by creationists for decades. Old Earth theories violates principles of thermodynamics. Again, from purely empirical grounds I have come to believe YEC is a viable scientific hypothesis independent of any religious texts. The independent scientific verification of YEC will naturally lead to a theological interpretation. If we keep insisting YEC is wrong, we might be overlooking potentially the greatest scientific discovery of all time....I will let geophysicists deal with this. & you're right - IF YEC turns out to be right it would be a fantastic scientific discovery, worthy of multiple Nobel Prizes. & because of that, any real indication that it's true would lead iconoclastic scientists with no religious ax to grind to argue for it and get the glory, money, &c. The fact that that doesn't happen is significant.


Lastly, it was one of your posting on the web that alterted me to the possiblity that the Universal Wave function might require collapse by God. I think that is a very reasonable scientific hypothesis -- that some Being in the future is actualizing today's reality trough his observation at the end of time. So actually, I think the scientific evidence, as time progresses may be approaching the views of traditional cherished doctrines. In a sense, the traditional views may be prophetic of where science will eventually go.

I think open inquiry is in order.Indeed. But the idea of the role of consciousness, and of the divine mind in particular, in QM has nothing to do as far as I can see with belief in a young universe or opposition to evolution.

Shalom,
George

[scordova]

have you run your idea of a decaying c by Dr. Trefil yet? I wonder what his opinion is?

I did, he felt it was important, I did not want to press him on the issue (he's a busy man). I actually got word from one of his students from way back that Dr. Trefil was interested in spatial and temporal variation in light speed.

I've seen the analysis to the contrary, and I don't think they look at it fairly at all. What is important is measurement made under good conditions, and particularly if done by the same experimenter, such as Nobel Laureate Albert Michelson.

Historical Light Speed Measurements (http://www.arn.org/ubb/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic;f=13;t=001264#000007)


The fact that Old Universe secular cosmologists like Barrow and Davies are interested in it got me excited at the possibility. If we assume old universe, and get high speed of light in the past, then we realize we might not need old universe assumptions at all. Decaying light speed will account for :

1. Red Shift

2. The supposed Lorentz Time Dilation in Supernova Decay or any such phenomenon (the slow motion is actually a result of light speed decay, not a real Lorentz Transformation )

3. Quantization in the Red Shift

Structure formation of the Solar System and Galaxies seems too problematic for the Big Bang. I'm not insisting I'm right, but I think it is pre-mature to write off Young Earth.

What would be crucial is some sort of falsifiable experiment.

Salvador

[scordova]

Thank you Dr. Murphy for your thoughtful reply.

Salvador

[geochron]

The speed of light is constant. It's the length of the metre that's increasing. :smile:

Seriously, last I read of Barrow he was pretty clear that you have to construct a dimensionless constant to pose the question of such variation meaningfully, iirc.

[john_umana]

This is NOT a thread for those who want to argue about whether evolution has happened or not!

There seems to be relatively little interest in the new Cosmogony 201 forum. Several reasons for this may be suggested, but one is that there's only so much that can be said about the possibilities for reconciling early Genesis with science. Without at all discounting the importance of Genesis, I suggest that Christians who take science seriously need to spend less of their time on that activity and more on thinking about the implications of cosmic & biological evolution for the way we proclaim the gospel and otherwise function as a church.

How do we reconcile the belief that God is active in everything that happens with the fact that we can understand 14 billion years of cosmic history pretty well with no reference to God? If humanity has evolved, how do we express the beliefs embodied in traditional doctrines of humanity's "original righteousness" and original sin? How should we speak about the salvation brought about by Christ in an evolutionary context? How do we deal theologically with intelligent life that has evolved in other places in the universe - if indeed it has? (We ought to be giving some thought to that now instead of waiting & playing catch-up when we get the 1st radio transmissions from ETs.) Can we make significant connections between scientific predictions about the cosmic future and traditional themes of Christian eschatology?

I don't mean to suggest that no one has addressed such questions before. I have tried to do so myself to some extent. But those are the issues we ought to be wrestling with. & I don't mean to dismiss early Genesis by saying that. Genesis provides important theological resources for dealing with the important questions.

Shalom,
George

Hi, You're raising very significant theological for Christians as well as scientific questions. There are good answers to these questions, so don't give up. good luck, john

[shunyadragon]

Here is what bothers me. It may be possible that evolution of man took place, AND that the Bible is true, but I have not been able to get a firm grip on the two being true at the same time. I am open to this and would like to see the idea succeed, but I am still unsettled. I still do not believe a really satisfying explanation of the following is answered:

The Fall
The Garden of Eden
The Genealogies

I am open that the Fall may be understood in a "Federal Headship" sort of way, or that Adam was the first soulish creature and that his progeny interbreed with "the daughters of men" as some sort of explanation for gene diversity perhaps. Even George's idea that man evolved to the point that he became morally accountable and God enlightened them and they also became spiritually accountable. The Fall, in this regard, is understood collectively and the effects are bound in us all to the present.

Still trying to jive all this with my understanding of Romans. I must say that it is all very difficult. I think, perhaps, the Federal Headship idea is most palatable, as I have given this more thought.

Moving on, I am also open that the Garden of Eden may be understood symbolically perhaps in the same vein of understanding the book of Revelation. (The awareness of them being nude and ashamed has always bothered me, why would they be ashamed of their nudity?--just a question that may be best answered symbolically. Also the beauty of Gen. 2 seems adulterated if force fitted into a “correct” chronology. We also have the Tree of Life which is also in the Book of Revelation which is very symbolic, we also have the talking snake. The similarities between these early chapters of the first book with that of the last book, Revelation, requires more thought. I would very much like to discuss this further)

Of course these ramblings take us to serious theological questions. I agree with George, we need to continue to discuss such things. I must say that I appreciate an atmosphere where ideas and free to be thought without constant antagonism. I can’t say this forum has been completely rich in such an atmosphere, but I do hope this atmosphere will be worked on and encouraged by the participants here.

~Charleen

I will answer this simply first. Science basically sees the world without the presuppositions of 'The Fall, The Garden of Eden and the The Genealogies.' These are basically theological questiond concerning the spiritual nature and history of humanity. These would simply fall into the physical history of humanity as science sees it, literally or symbolically.

I do believe that there is a point in the long physical human history where humanity became a unique spiritual talisman of creation, and this point made humand no longer animals as such, but Biblically and scientifically I believe they share the same physical roots.

Side note: Based on my understanding of the Bible many different perspectives, none of these issues put forward as traditional presuppositions 'must' be interpreted literally to justify God's plan for humanity.

[grmorton]

I'm not so sure that the scientific evidence has yet refuted a 24-hour day reading of Genesis days. I'm open to an Old Earth interpretation, but when secular scientists put speed of light decay on the table, I began to have a change of heart 2 years ago. I have at Access Research Networks debated geologists and biologists including Denis Lamoureux and Wesley Elsberry (at his website) and became more convinced on YEC over the last year in the process of the discourses.

I am a friend of Denis' and I like him a lot. He is not a geologist. Wesley is also a friend and I dont' believe that he is a geologist. He is a zoologist. So, I would invite you to a thread I will start off with a set of pictures and ask you if you can please explain how the data I present fits into a young-earth paradigm. If you think you have debated geologists, you haven't met me yet. Look for the thread on Salvador and geology. It will be in the Natural science forum so that other geologists can pipe in.

[maudman]

I do not think the issue of sin is an ontological one. When Adam (and Eve) chose to disobey God's command to not eat of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, they were thrusted into a domain outside of unobscured relationship with God; Satan becomes the god of this world, hence his influence is immediate upon every child born. Everyone born in this domain is subject to the results of the Fall, whether they like it or not. So, Adam creates far more harm than just a proclamation given to him by God: "The day you eat of the tree...you die."

This is the crux of Romans chapter five, particularly the last section where Paul goes through that somewhat confusing escapade of Adam's sin is not like everyone else' sin, and vice versa. Come chapter six, the problem is rectified: We die to sin; we are translated out of its domain (Col 1); we are in Christ and not in the world anymore (the day will come when this body will be resurrected in order to both prove and complete this great truth).

This does not address the biological issues presented by evolution--how it all happened--but it represents clearly, I believe, the theological issue Genesis is trying to make.

Hoping to have contributed...

Starkman

Hello Starkman

This is how I now Approach Genisis. And I now think this theological veiw is closer to the truth. It takes in account that Evil was already present before The man in the Garden. And it is YHWH that says the man has chosen to become as one of US to know good and Evil, So Evil had theological roots before the man in the garden.

The Veiw that the man's sin was passed on I don't buy anymore. It is a curse or condition that he has brought on those who were chosen before the foundation of the world, Or those who are the special creation of YHWH. It was this man Adam who brings a curse to those who are planted (fruit trees)
in the garden who he is tending or ministering, that will bring forth fruit. The bible is explicit that evil already existed. Its the relationship of evil and sin that I think is where these things are resolved.

Evil is a condition of consquence that is natural not unatural in the creation or causation of physics of the universe if evolution is reallity, and is to me the inverse of that which existed pryor to the creation of the physical universe. The Evil is to me the inheritable when it happens outside the domain of the true nature YHWH. The nature of matter is at emnity with YHWH. It is to me the Elohim that is becoming or evolving. It of itself cannot create anything that by definition relative to YHWH is Good. It of itself has no life. What we see in life is to me an evolution and it is a balance of the Elohim and the matter. The nature of life is not the by product of the fundemental laws of matter but is in fact a balance of good and evil cause the Elohim were acting within and through the matter created. The curse is that the man YHWH creates chose not to heed YHWH's warning and therfore brought a way of life of having to partake of the life that the earth could produce. He would therefore of necessity do a deadly dance with the god of this world. Who's only means of any simiulation of life is a selfish act of taking to maintain the life that had been given.

Those are some very good points.

Peace
maudman