Thinking on my feet

The other day I was talking to some fellow Christians and I mentioned in passing that I was a geologist. Of course, the conversation immediately took a turn and the next thing I knew I was being asked "So... how old is the Earth"?

I quickly responded, "about 4.6 billion years... but let's not get into that right now."

The age of the Earth is always a hot topic so I'm going to have to start giving better responses to this type of question.

I thought about it a bit and came up with a different question:

Would the author of an ancient religious text really be trying to tell his audience about the age of the Earth or some other question related to physical science as we know it in the 21st Century?

Seems unlikely.

To me, the main purpose of the Genesis creation narratives is not to answer the question "How?", but instead to answer the questions "Who?". The ancient Hebrews were surrounded by cultures that had many gods. In fact, we see over and over and over again in the Old Testament how the Hebrews were almost constantly worshiping the gods of other cultures only to have their one God draw them back to Him.

Therefore, the most reasonable interpretation of Genesis would then be, first and foremost, to establish the Hebrew God as the author and creator of the world and all living things... a radical concept for a religion in that part of the world at that time in history. All other information we get from the text would be considered secondary.

So maybe I should have asked them to break the original question into two parts:

Part 1: How old is the Earth according to the Bible?

Answer: "It doesn't matter. Just know that God did it."

Part 2: How old is the Earth according to physical science?

Answer: "4.5-4.6 billion years."

So what's with the 7 days of creation in Genesis if the author wasn't concerned about time? The days could be a metaphor for the establishment of the sabbath day. They could be a literary device used to establish God as creator over all things (time, seasons, soil, light, rain, plants, livestock, people, etc). The author could have used 7 days for any number of reasons, but based on the literary style and historical context it seems most likely that the author was not intending to make any statement about the exact age of the Earth.

The End is the Beginning is the End

About two years ago, I quit my job working in the environmental consulting business and decided to go back to school. It's hard to leave a steady job and head off into the unknown, but it was especially hard when you worked for a small company with a really great boss. But Steve wasn't just a really great boss. He was a man I deeply respected.

I had been friends with his kids from church and he had volunteered with our youth group when I was an undergraduate. He heard that I was working towards my Geology degree and hired me. I wasn't all that fond of the work I was doing, but I worked hard because I didn't want to let him down. When I originally decided to quit and go back to grad school to study paleontology, he was understanding and encouraging. Then, a year later when I finally did quit to study geophysics, he supported me once again.

I saw him from time to time at various parties for his kids and our mutual friends and he was always very interested in my studies. We had some great conversations. But secretly, I felt a bit guilty when talking with him because I felt like we worked quite well together, I enjoyed working for him, and I was sad to have left that behind.

Of course, by the tone of this little narrative you can probably tell that Steve passed away recently. He leaves behind a wife, two children, and two infant grandchildren.

I typically don't get too emotional when dealing with death. Maybe that's because of my religious background, or maybe that's because I recognize that death is the ultimate destination for all life. But this particular death has caused me to pause and reflect more than usual. It could be because it was the result of a heart attack and was so sudden. Or maybe it was because Steve was in my life when I made some pretty major life decisions. But mostly, I think it is because he lived a life that you could be proud of. When I die, I can only hope that I have positively influenced so many people.

And that's what really gets me. As I get ready for the arrival of my first child in a couple of months (isn't she gorgeous), I want to become a better person. No. I need to become a better person. But the Christian faith isn't about pretending to be better than everybody else, obeying an enormous set of rules, and being "holy". It is about relationships and choosing to make other people's lives better even if it means sacrificing something in your own.

This, of course, does not come naturally. In fact, it is exactly the opposite of how we are wired to act as humans. Steve wasn't perfect. Nobody is. It's not about perfection at all. It's about knowing the kind of love that God gives and reflecting that love to other people in your life.

So as I complete my M.S. Degree, start my Ph.D. and prepare myself to teach college students about the wonders of the Geological Sciences, I remind myself that all of these things are secondary to wonder of love... true, pure and unconditional love.

The Double-Life

It's been a busy 6 months and I've had little time to spend on the blog.

Grad Student by Day:

I spent the Spring semester as a TA for Mineralogy, which is a very time consuming assignment... especially since I had to basically re-learn the whole subject after a 5 or 6 year break. My Masters Thesis is due by the end of Summer, and my defense is scheduled for a few weeks from now. I'm looking forward to being done and getting these results published so I can move on to something new. Studying earthquakes in Arizona has been fun, but I'm looking forward to seeing what new projects will come my way as I start towards a Ph.D. in the Fall.

Musician by Night:

For the last part of the Spring semester I was spending many of my nights and weekends getting ready to play bass for a Jr. High camp that we just finished. Jr. High kids have so much energy... way more than a dozen drunk guys at a dive bar. Learning 27 songs does not happen overnight, but all the hard work definitely paid off. The camp was the most fun I've ever had playing music, and it re-kindled that long-neglected desire to do nothing but play bass.

Maybe I should have named the post "Triple-Life". My first child will be here in about 5 months. We find out if it is a boy or girl this week. I can't imagine that I will end up with more time to post on this blog when my Thesis is done because we will be in preparation for the New Family Unit. Still, I won't let this blog fizzle out. There are so many things I've been wanting to discuss that have had to sit on the back burner. I'll move them to the front sometime soon.

I feel stupid.... and that's a good thing.

Well it has been a crazy couple of weeks for me. I have a lot of uncertainty ahead of me, but luckily I'll be too busy attempting to finish my thesis by the end of this Summer to really notice.

Oh, and I feel stupid too.

I feel like I could sit and read for a month straight and still not know as much as I should. I've grown especially angry at my TV lately... lousy machine is always sitting there calling out to me. And it feels so good to numb the mind for a bit that it's hard to resist. Of course, it doesn't help that all of our furniture is pointed at it.

Maybe the Red Hot Chili Peppers were on to something when they told us to "throw away your television".



Anyways, I was just reading an article called The Importance of Stupidity in Scientific Research and wanted to get down some thoughts. The article basically says that even the smartest people in the world don't have all of the answers. This means that when scientists start asking questions that nobody has the answer to, they are the ones who end up having to go and figure it out.

That's been the thing about grad school that I have really started to enjoy. I love the fact that I'm working with a data set that nobody has seen before. It's awesome to try and answer questions that nobody else is even asking.

It's funny because I know lots of people who think that science is out to disprove the existence of a deity, but when I look at nature I can see the infinite character of God is displayed in every scientific field. We keep learning, and then we keep finding more to learn.

So yeah, we're all stupid... but that's a good thing.

Genesis 1: A Summary of Interpretations

So maybe I've spent more time looking at that Genesis than the one in the Bible, but that "16 bit power" was amazing, right?

I've said this before, but I had always been bothered by the fact that the Biblical creation accounts just didn't seem to match what I learned in science. Over the last couple of years, it has been my personal mission to learn as much as I could about the Biblical creation accounts and their many interpretations. As a result, I finally feel that I have sifted through enough material to have a firm grasp on the popular views of Genesis that exist.

Below, I will summarize each of the 7 interpretations of Genesis that I have come across in my exploration. Again, I aim to be as objective as possible while presenting these views. It is not my desire to tell the reader what to believe, but instead I hope to inform those who may not have the time and/or desire that I had to go over all of this material. If at any point I should happen to provide false information, misrepresent a view, or seem particularly biased, please leave a comment or send me an email.

View 1: Naturalistic Atheism

Naturalistic Atheism suggests that the formation of our universe can be explained by natural (i.e. scientific) means. According to this view, the universe started with a Big Bang, which eventually resulted in the formation of our Earth, which was then followed by the origin of life and the development of species through evolution. In other words, Naturalistic Atheism says there is no god; therefore, the creation accounts in Bible are to be treated as mere ancient texts containing outdated worldviews.

Side Note: The six remaining views each uphold the doctrine of Biblical Inerrancy, which is the belief that the Bible is accurate and totally free of error. This means that these views agree on the inspiration and authority of the Bible and only differ in their interpretation of the text.

View 2: Young-Earth Creationism (YEC)

Young-Earth Creationism (or Recent Creationism) is a popular view among many conservative Christians. This view holds to a straightforward interpretation of the text in Genesis in which the universe was created by God during six literal 24-hour days approximately 6,000 to 10,000 years ago. YEC believes that God used supernatural (i.e. not scientific) means to create and shape the universe into what we observe today.

Side Note: Most people are very familiar with View 1 and View 2 because of the well-publicized feud between Young-Earth Creationists and Naturalistic Atheists. The following views are not as well-known or discussed, but have been popular during various times in history.

View 3: Day Age View (Progressive Creationism)

Progressive Creationism suggests that the six days in Genesis 1 were not 24-hour days, but were really long periods of time during which God supernaturally and gradually performed creative acts according to the order outlined in Genesis 1. The Day Age View notes that the order of creation in Genesis 1 is compatible with the order of events described by current theories in cosmology and geology. Some Progressive Creationists also believe in Theistic Evolution, the idea that God used evolution during the creative process.

View 4: Analogical Days View

This view notes that the Bible often uses familiar language and concepts to describe supernatural events. With this in mind, the Analogical Days viewpoint says that God’s six work days in Genesis 1 are analogous to our human workdays. In this way, the creation accounts both describe God’s creation of the world (in a non-scientific sense) and also establishes the importance of the Sabbath, a day of rest in Hebrew culture.

View 5: Fiat Days View

The Fiat Days view suggests that God spoke the creation commands (or fiats) during six literal 24-hour days; however, the results of these commands may have occurred over long periods of time. The Fiat Days view stresses the fact that God created the world, but it is not concerned with the means by which these commands were carried out. Basically, this interpretation is a conservative mixture of the Young-Earth and Old-Earth viewpoints.

View 6: Framework Interpretation

The Framework Interpretation says that the days and objects in Genesis 1 were chosen for a symbolic reason. Here, Days 1 to 3 represent kingdoms (light, sky and sea, dry land and plants), Days 4 to 6 represent the “kings” of each kingdom (sun and moon, birds and sea creatures, land animals and humans), and Day 7 sets God over all Creations as the King of Kings.

View 7: Cosmic Temple Inauguration

The Cosmic Temple Inauguration view claims that that the Bible was written for everybody but specifically to Ancient Israel. This means that the Bible should be read as a text that has more in common with ancient literature than modern science. This is the view outlined in a book I recently read called The Lost World of Genesis One (you can read a quick summary here). In it, the author proposes that Genesis 1 describes the creation of functions (time, weather, agriculture, etc.) and not matter. This view essentially takes the Framework Interpretation and plugs it into its ancient context.

Conclusion

I suppose View 8 would consist of those people who piece together aspects of all the other views.

And then of course, there are also those people who have View 9 and are either unsure which one they believe, or have not really taken the effort to look into it. It is my hope that this series of blogs will reduce the number of people who consider themselves a part of the View 9 group.

Only Human

I don’t think that a site that publishes new material only once in a six month period can still be considered a blog, so I guess I am hoping to re-establish the “blog” status of this site.

When I really think about it, the main reason I have been neglecting this site is a simple insecurity issue. I just have not felt like I have the authority at this point in my life to play the part of scientist, biblical scholar or philosopher. After all, I’m just a 2nd year graduate student who occasionally reads an English translation of the Bible and likes to think about philosophy in the shower.

But in truth, giving into that insecurity is listening to a lie. I have learned so much about life, science, the Bible, my faith and my research over the last two years that a lack of material to discuss on this site is a poor excuse for my 6-month hiatus. I’ve got a lot that I want to share. I just hope that I have the discipline to keep posting at consistent intervals.

So here’s to shorter, more frequent blogs!

Born to Make Mistakes

So there’s this awful 80s song by The Human League called “Human” that popped into my head when I was sitting down to write this post. And since the goal of this blog is not to discuss the dangers of over-using synthesizers, all I’ll say about this song is that the lyrics mention the fact that all humans make mistakes.

Just for kicks though, I've linked the picture to the video of that song for your listening and viewing pleasure (or displeasure). Be warned that the song will be stuck in your head for weeks.

Anyways, if you have never made a mistake in your life, then just go ahead and stop reading now because the rest of this post will not apply to you. But if you agree with me that humans are fallible beings, then I invite you to continue reading.

As fellow mistake-makers, we all should consider the possibility that some of our beliefs just might contain error. No matter how strong or well-reasoned they might be, no matter how long we have held them, no matter how many people in the world share them, chances are that something we believe in is untrue, incorrect or not real in some fashion.

I wrote a post about belief a while back and I’d like to state it more concisely. There are always going to be others who hold beliefs that are different than our own. Therefore, we owe it to ourselves to truly own our beliefs and to learn what they are, what they mean, and where they came from. Only then we can thoughtfully evaluate the ideas of others with a skepticism that is both respectful and open-minded.

In the next couple of weeks and months, I will finally (I promise) provide a summary of the beliefs that are commonly held when interpreting the first chapters of Genesis. My goal is not to persuade people to believe as I do, but to share what I have learned so that the reader can be aware of the different beliefs that are commonly held about the first book of the Bible.

The Devil's in the Details

This blog was a long time coming because I just didn't know where to start.

So I typed in various versions of "science and faith" or "Evolution vs Creation" into Google and quickly found my inspiration.

- In the 1600s, Galileo's claim that the Earth revolves around the Sun resulted in the Catholic Church charging him with heresy and banning several scientific texts.

- In the 1800s, Charles Darwin's book proposing the theory of evolution by Natural Selection was hotly debated (though, it was more warmly received by the Church in Darwin's time than it is today).

- In the 1920s, a lawsuit over the teaching of evolution in a public school made it all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court.

- Now it is 2010 and after 500 years of irreconcilable differences, it seems that science and faith have finally given up and filed for a nasty divorce. You all have seen it. Every time science and faith get in the same room there is bitterness, distrust, fighting, and name-calling. Sure, we kids have to deal with spending weekdays with science and weekends at God's house, but everybody is happier now, right?

image courtesy of sciencecartoonsplus.org

Ok, so maybe that was a bit dramatic, but you get my point. Can't we all just get along?

I have a theory (yes, another one) that all of this fighting is not really due to irreconcilable differences after all. I think that science and faith "appear" to be in conflict partly because of ambiguous definitions, misunderstanding, misinformation, and various other forms of confusion. Let's face it, nobody can be an expert in religious studies, anthropology, philosophy AND science. Young-Earth Creationism, Old-Earth Creationism, Neo-Creationism, Intelligent Design, Theistic Evolution, Naturalistic Evolution, Uniformitarianism, Catastrophism, Deism, Agnosticism, Atheism..... AHHH!

No wonder we have no idea what anybody else is talking about. Honestly, when are two normal people ever going to agree on the proper definitions of all of those terms? It is this confusion that is the source of the perceived conflict between science and faith. The Devil is in the details, and he is laughing like crazy when we all go into a room on the same team and then fight like enemies.

So, in an effort to spoil the Devil's fun and begin the clarification process, here are some definitions from Dictionary.com:

Science (n): systematic knowledge of the physical or material world gained through observation and experimentation.

(Note the conspicuous absence of anything spiritual in the definition.)

Faith (n): Confident belief in the truth, value, or trustworthiness of a person, idea, or thing.

(Did you catch that? Belief, truth, value, and trustworthiness are all non-physical and immaterial things. We cannot examine or measure matters of faith by means of observation and experimentation.)

So let's play God for a minute (I promise it won't be blasphemous). If you were going to create physical beings and place them in a physical world, doesn't it make sense to give them a way to learn and understand who you are through that physical environment?

And if you were going to give those physical beings a sense of spiritual awareness, doesn't it make sense that you would also give them a way to understand who you are in that spiritual sense?

Well that's exactly what God did. God gave us observation and experimentation (i.e. scientific inquiry) as a way to interact with our environment, and through it, to learn how incredibly amazing our Creator is. He also gave us the ability to understand spiritual ideas and then presented us with a field guide (i.e. the Bible) that tells us how to deal with spiritual and non-material concepts as we live out our lives within the aforementioned physical environment.

These are the two "books" that God gave us. When we interpreted each of them correctly, these books give us a complete understanding of our Creator.


Next Time:
Next post, I will dive into what I have learned in the last couple of years about the Bible, science, and anthropology as it relates to the Book of Genesis. If you want to read ahead, you can find more detailed writings about these topics on the links to the right (specifically, Essay 2 from the science and faith link).