This comes from the thread that has gone outside, so many of you may not have seen it. I know it's arrogant for me to suggest that it's important to have a read through, but I'm researching a book on this subject, so your feedback would help - hence the thread.
It's long but hopefully readable - please have a go and tell me what you think. Is it too complicated? Do you think it's rubbish? OR Do you think it has value?
Ok, so here it is one last time..
Firstly, let's establish a few things. Literal creationist do not accept evolution theory, and I know that – I mean how could they believe the Universe was created in 7 days when evolutionary theory works over much longer timescales, so they are poles apart. BUT if they adapted the theory of creationism to evoke relativity they could make it work. They of course wouldn’t because their dogmatic approach does not allow them too… but none the less.
Most scientists likewise, do not accept the literal creationists view because it ignores all the evidence that shows that the Universe was most definitely not created in 7 days. However, scientists should know that by evoking relativity, which is a theory grounded in scientific methodology, they could make the two compatible if they wanted to. BUT of course they don’t want to, hence the problem.
As regards the concept of teaching creationism in schools (which is what was at the start of this thread): Well, no sane person would argue against the concept of choice would they? However, choice can only be exercised if ALL the theories are explained within the same time frame and within the same format, so that individuals can objectively compare them side by side. On this basis it IS wrong to just offer evolutionary theory as the only ‘true’ explanation of the creation of Humanity. What would be wrong however, is if either faction, who by definition may have a vested interest, seeks to exercise this right for political gain or to exclude other interpretations to gain dominance.
On this basis I would advocate that ALL children are taught about literal creationism, evolutionary theory and the hybrid I’m proposing (I don’t know… let’s call it) The Harmonized Evolutionary And Creationistic Theory. THE ACT. All the theories would be given a fair and equal hearing and every child in conjunction with their parents (or maybe exclusive of their parents if need be…) would have the information to make their OWN minds up without being subject to the propaganda, misinformation and political machinations that currently cloud these issues.
That’s fair enough isn’t it?
So, to the theory:
Firstly, we have to establish what the term ‘day’ actually signifies. On this basis, if we accept that God didn’t personally write the Bible, then the term ’day’ is open to interpretation. Humans, who were the writers of the Bible, translated the Word of God from either thought, expression, vision or whatever… could therefore have only interpreted the term ‘day’ based on their own experience. BUT, because God is a super natural being (in the eyes of religion) that exists outside of the Universe, His experience would have been different – and as we are not God we would have no way of knowing what that experience was/is. Relativity tells us that each observer experiences their ‘reality’ in different ways relative to others AND that this experience can exist in the same ‘apparent’ timeframe – although, that as time is not a fixed value, each will have a different perception of the amount of ‘time’ that has passed. You cannot therefore refute the fact that it’s possible that God’s day maybe equivalent to 3 billion years on Earth. Unless you are God you cannot be certain of his experience, but as you are human you can be certain of yours – and that’s where the problem lies. To accept this concept of relative experiences being different, but essentially the same, one has to step out of our personal experience and imagine what it may look and feel like from God’s perspective.
The majority of course can’t do that, but some can. Either way, again, what we can say is that this kind of relative equivalence is possible.
If we therefore agree, for the sake of discussion, that a ‘day’ does not have a fixed value of time and is instead relative to the observer, then we can say that God’s day (however, it helps you to define the word ‘day’) could be equivalent to Humanity’s perception of 3.5 billion years. So, when God says that he created all life forms, including Man, in one day he means it. What he hasn’t done is defined that system of ‘creation’. In other words that by creating DNA He knew that it would create all of life on Earth and which in turn would lead to the creation of man by the evolutionary method of biological diversity accounted for by natural selection... Why doesn’t he say that? Ummm… because it is a little complicated. Instead what we have is the symbolic and beautiful representation of creation as described in Genesis – which, let’s face it, was written at a time when no-one could have possibly understood the concept of relativity, the Universe and the Space-time continuum.
It’s a great sales tool – adapt your pitch to the customer’s level of understanding.
Now, Genesis DOES not say this – and creationists do NOT believe this, but my point is that you could certainly argue from a religious perspective that is what He intended if you re-wrote some aspects of the Bible and taught it in this way. Likewise, scientists don’t have to abandon any part of their doctrine on evolution to accept this possibility either. They wouldn’t of course, because it admits the possibility of God being the organizing force that set the whole system in motion rather than the (to be frank) slightly unbelievable concept that it all happened spontaneously and without direction.
If you accept that all this is possible, it is therefore also possible to adapt both the religious and scientific view points to incorporate it – of course, it’s never gonna happen, but if it did this is what it might look like.
Adapted Religious Summary
God created all of Life on Earth, including Man, in 1 day. In God’s domain His day is long, and from His experience He gave unto us the perception of history, so that we could more readily understand our existence within our domain. In His divine wisdom on this day He created DNA and allowed all of life’s seed to burst forth and occupy the Earth. In time, Man strove for dominion over this realm and through the divine experience of biological diversity and natural selection he made it so. God, created this cycle of birth and renewal and God, in His wisdom, also created only One life form, DNA, so that ALL of life would experience connection and harmony. And low it was that from Adam’s ‘rib’ He created Woman and from their joining they begat Humanity. (Please excuse the cod God language…just having a bit of fun, that’s all).
Adapted Simplistic Scientific Summary
Life on Earth began only once and all of life is derived from the same basic DNA structure. Over 3.5 billion years this structure evolved into Humanity by utilizing a system of biological diversity and natural selection. This system is called Evolution and it is possible that the system was initially generated spontaneously and without direction. However, at this stage it’s important to note that the timescale of 3.5 billion years is purely a term used to define Humanity’s relative experience with regard to the passage of time experienced on Earth. In the case of supernatural beings existing outside of the Universe it should also be noted that although there is no current proof of such entities, if one or more were to exist, their perception of time relative to their experience would be different to ours. Therefore it is possible, when using Einstein’s Theory of Relativity as a guide, to assert that 3,5 billion years on Earth could be equivalent to 1 day for such entities. It is also possible to assert that if such beings existed that they may have implemented the system of Evolution, as previously described.
Conclusion.
If both creationism and evolutionary theory were adapted in this way they would become equivalent and self supporting – and the choices we make regarding the conflict of Faith and the sciences by reference to our day to day experiences would be easier to reconcile.
Of course I’ve only touched on ONE area of religion here, so bear that in mind!
In essence though, what I have explained is already part of the intuitive understanding of the Universe described in many Eastern Religions. If it touches a cord with you, I would suggest having a look at Buddhism because there already is much equivalence with Buddhism and Science, and in particular Quantum Mechanics.
And finally:
Please don’t take this apart piece by piece and quote it back at me expecting me to answer you because I really have had enough of going around in circles! In creating this text I accept that there may be some errors and/or omissions, but then I have only been concerned with delivering an overall pictorial concept rather than trying to examine each pixel that makes it up. In doing this I know you may have a different view point and that’s fine. All you need do is read it with an open mind and make a decision in your own mind as to whether or not the concept is possible.
As I mentioned at the start, ideally just try and restrict your comments to a reply based on whether you think: it's too complicated. It's rubbish. OR It has value. By all means you can then explain why you think that if you want to. These are important issues and I do think we should examine our personal view on them on regular basis devoid of the propoganda that normally clouds this sort of discussion.
I would much appreciate you all being part of this experiment!
Finally, I’ll leave you with a quote from the great Albert Einstein:
‘Try and penetrate with our limited means the secrets of nature and you will find that, behind all the discernible concatenations, there remains something subtle, intangible and inexplicable. Veneration for this force beyond anything that we can comprehend is my religion. To that extent I am, in point of fact, religious’.
Bookmarks