I am not religious, but this is what I have always thought that would have to mean if creation were literally true. Ultimately, the two things aren't incompatible.

There's an old and respectable tradition of biblical interpretation which says that of course not all of the Bible is in the genre of realistic history, and you have to figure out what genre something is before figuring out what it means.

How old and how respectable? Well, St. Augustine (d. 430) believed it, and both Protestants and Catholics would agree that he's the most influential theologian after St. Paul. He interpreted the first chapters of Genesis that way in a book which we still have, in fact.

Craig Neumeier, LHN

I have heard that "day" is actually a mistranslation, and "era" or somesuch would be better, although I don't know whether there's any truth in it.

I believe in God. I don't believe in evolution. The two aren't related in my mind. I'm pretty sure there are atheists that don't believe in evolution either. I'm open for discussion on evolution. If it turned out to be true, it wouldn't shake the foundation of my religion. I just happen to think that its a shaky theory. I'm not aware of any data showing the "evolving" of any species at any time in that evolving is definied as the introduction of new genetic information. Rather, all known examples are expressions of previously existing genetic data. Maybe there's a different triggering mechanism for some genes in different environments, but thats not the same as evolving into a different species. Philip Johnson wrote an academic book (not for the faint-of-heart) called "Darwin on Trial". Its interesting. Very. The scientific case against evolution. If you get a chance, watching him debate is a treat. I believe there's video of a few of his debates floating around somewhere. I'm pretty sure he's a professor at Berkley. Maybe I'm misremembering. I have the flu. But I double checked his name and title, I know those are correct.

I've never really understood why Creationists insist that God would snap his fingers and create the heavens and the earth in an instant just as a show of power. It does nothing to diminish the wonder and power of God to envision him as Newton's omnipotent clockmaker. Besides, the order of creation (where life appeared) in Genesis and the order of creation in evolution is almost the same.

That said, I am saddened by the cynical atheists who reduce the beauty and uniqueness of humanity, and even life itself, to mere "chance." Is it at all surprising why a great many (but not all) atheists come across as bitter and detached?

I've always found the whole question of God and time to be a brainbuster. Fascinating, but a brainbuster.

Augustine's Confessions are worth reading in this regard-- not just the autobiographical material including his conversion, but also and especially the final section of the book, where he explores categories such as time and eternity-- memory (actually for Augustine memoria includes not just memory but also something not unlike our notion of the subconscious)-- biblical interpretation, including the text's capacity for multiple dimensions and layers of meaning (and I believe the example he used was Genesis 1), etc.

Of course Augustine was exploring these categories in search of the preconditions for his own conversion to the Christian faith. But in my experience this section of the Confessions can also be profitably read with an eye to the whole range of questions you're opening up-- God, time, and ultimate origins.

(Though note, I'm away on vacation right now, so I don't have access to my library-- pardon me if I'm messing up on Augustine or his Confessions in my faulty memory!)

FWIW, Rosemary, like you I've never experienced any tension between God and science. Though I never felt any urge to keep these things separated in my mind, either. Of course by intellectual temperament I've always seen everything as operating on multiple levels of meaning, with "literal" and "figurative" both as marginal limiting cases. For me, that led to an interest in the whole notion of signs and symbols, and from there eventually to the semiotic thinking of the logician and philosopher of science Charles Sanders Peirce. Which is another story. Though not entirely unconnected with the whole question of God and time.

Oops, Craig, sorry-- tip of the hat to you! I just now noticed your post about Augustine, above.

It would seem to follow that if God created us in his image, that includes his own perception of the passage of time.

Or, at the very least, he created some other standard by which humans mark time. I don't mean to say that the calendar comes down from on high, but if we were created, then the way that we logically view one cycle of light and darkness as an intuitive measure of time should also come from creation. So having bestowed us with that knowledge/intuition, and being a loving God (or a scientist, or whichever way one chooses to view him), why would God choose to completely throw us a loop and tell us the story of creation on terms completely incomprehensible to us? There's just too much that doesn't really make sense about that.

I am religious and I don't "believe" (for lack of a better word) in evolution. To me the whole thing is just a way for some humans to say, "We don't really need God because he doesn't have anything to do with us." To me the whole beauty of my Christian faith is to know that A) God created me, B) I have a purpose, and C) He cares about me. I believe the Bible literally and I believe that God really created everything in 6 days. I believe that there are some very good examples in the fossil record to demonstrate this. One of them is in Glen Rose, Texas. There are fossil footprints of humans and dinosaurs side by side in the same rock formation. This proves that dinosaurs and man existed simultaneously at one time and not millions of years apart like they say in Jurassic Park. Anyway why is it hard to believe that an awesome God as powerful as the one I worship couldn't create it all in 6 days? Orfor that matter, six minutes or 6 millenia? He could have done it all in one instant if he chose. Not hard for me to accept at all. I think that's why they call it faith. I remember in Biology studying homogenous structures. Supposedly one of the proofs of evolution. That's where they show a fish embryo, a chick embryo and a human embryo side by side and point out the various features that all three share, meaning that they evolved along the same lines. I remember thinking, and this was before I found out that they guy who "discovered" these facts made them up, well, they were all created by the same God so wouldn't it make since for their earliest stages to look somewhat similar? There are so many examples like that one that just point to a common creator, not a common evolutionary ancestor. IMHO of course.

By the way, let me say how nice it is to read three posts from Rosemary in one night! :)

Holli -
An interesting post, but I really don't think that you can credibly make this claim:
"There are fossil footprints of humans and dinosaurs side by side in the same rock formation. This proves that dinosaurs and man existed simultaneously at one time and not millions of years apart like they say in Jurassic Park."
For one, it doesn't prove anything other than that dinosaurs and men walked in the same areas. But even that aside, that's simply one example, and if evolutionary evidence isn't concrete enough, I don't think you can base a case on your example or a handful of others like it.

And yes, it is great to see so much from Rosemary, isn't it?

I've also heard that earlier translations of the bible used a word that was a lot more similar to era or eon, rather than literal, siderial day.\

All of it is, more or less, a moot point. If you've got some sort of infinitely powerful, omnscient, omnipotent, unfathomable, ineffable critter running around creating universes, then it doesn't really matter what we think. He could have created the universe in 6 days in such a fashion that it would be indistinguishable from a world created through evolution. Conversely, even if we were sitting around with camcorders watching the world come into being, God could have simply snapped his fingers and created what ever impression He wanted to in our minds.

Ultimately, if you accept the existing of the more-or-less traditional Judeo-Christian-Muslim God, you ascribe all manner of ability to manipulate the very fabric of existence. So sitting around and going back and forth about what evolution does and doesn't prove is pretty bush league.

Furthermore, I would be pretty taken aback if God got bent out of shape because I used my critical thinking abilites to better understand the universe around me, regardless of the specific mechanics of how it go run up to speed.

Max:

We mark time based on the earth's rotation. But you have to figure that Adam and Eve in the garden of Eden didn't really need to comprehend time. I mean did Noah really live to be 900 years old? Perhaps. Or it was just how they counted before calendars and clocks and such. Whatever the case - I don't believe that God deliberately tricked us.

It would seem to follow that if God created us in his image, that includes his own perception of the passage of time.

That is your assumption unless you have a hot phone linked directly to heaven.

Image:
1. A reproduction of the form of a person or object, especially a sculptured likeness.
2. Physics. An optically formed duplicate, counterpart, or other representative reproduction of an object, especially an optical reproduction formed by a lens or mirror.
3. One that closely or exactly resembles another; a double.

If your thinking were correct why aren't we all equally brilliant or stupid or naive.

Why would image include perception? Is it not possible that an infinite being would have to explain something in simplistic terms to his children. His innocent, naive young children.

My almost 6 year old son is created in the image of Dean and myself.

Are you suggesting that I can explain the Theory of Relativity by saying: The speed of light is the same for all observers, no matter what their relative speeds. The laws of physics are the same in any inertial frame of reference. This means that the laws of physics observed by a hypothetical observer traveling with a relativistic particle must be the same as those observed by an observer who is stationary in the laboratory.

Are you suggesting that my 6 year old would get it? He is created in our image after all so that would mean he should have our same understanding of Physics, right?

Think about, that's all I ask.

It may be a moot point but I was bored and thought this would be fun to talk about.

And I am right - it's loads of fun!

Thanks Allison and Max for even noticing that it was me over here posting, often times not everyone does. :-)

Rosemary -

I'll try and answer this as best I can; I'll freely admit to answering the question with little more than cursory thought and probably poor word usage.

I would obviously not argue that your 6 year old would understand the Theory of Relativity simply because you do (or hey, maybe he does...more power to him, I got C's in AP Physics).

What I meant by the "in his image" comment is more that if God did in fact create human, it seems logical to me that he endowed us with the same general frame of understanding that he had of the world in which he placed us. I agree wholeheartedly that God did not deliberately trick humanity, but I find it just as unlikely that he purposefully placed roadblocks in the way of human understanding of the world. If so, then God's definition of a day, at least so far as he uses one in Scripture, would be the best one for humans to understand as well in order to comprehend not only the world, but the story of Creatson. That's basically what I was trying to say; "In his image" was an inopportune phrase.

Of course, this is all academic; as you pointed out, it's only my opinion, and I'm an atheist anyway. But I'm just trying to divine what would make sense, and that's what I come up with.

Anthropomorphism is the biggest human mistake concerning the divine, despite an explict ban on this conduct sitting at the core of monotheism via the Jewish religion (doesn't seem to stop many Jews, either).

G-d neither thinks as mankind does, nor would G-d CREATE as mankind does. That is to say, the very conception of what creation is and how it happens goes beyond human concepts to describe. Yet too many people read the Bible and conclude that creation is like playing with some divine LEGO set, and base their conception on that flawed analogy.

I've got a Sufi piece that speaks to this:

http://windsofchange.net/archives/003661.html

All very interesting - personally, I generally this debate a miss as it all comes down to faith....and any God who can create the universe can also work out how to be outside of time and create things within time.

Joe:

Excellent piece. I agree totally regarding anthropomorphism and that is what I was trying to say.

Max:

I hope you didn't think I was being snippy - that wasn't my intent. We tend to attribute human motivation, characteristics, or behavior to God and that is wrong. There is no way we could possibly begin to understand what God knows or does. If we did we wouldn't be talking about this.

Humans are silly that way we do the same thing with animals too. Oh look a sad puppy, a curious cat, etc. The dog soiled the carpet out of revenge...couldn't be that he couldn't hold it or had a bladder problem - nope he was mad at us and wanted to pay us back.

Mark:

For those of us with faith - this discussion is mostly moot. But for those without or in conflict I think this debate is a valid discussion on how it's possible.

That alone is worth the effort, don't you think?

Rosemary -

"I hope you didn't think I was being snippy" - not at all. You brought up a good point that I needed to articulate more clearly.

I also agree, for both you and Joe, that that's a very interesting piece on anthropomorphism; great poem on its own, as well. Of course, my question would that if God doesn't think the way humans do, does that preclude humans from thinking the way God does? At least by design, I mean.

Max:

I would have to say without a doubt, YES.

If you can, for a moment, believe that God is perfect. That should settle the matter for you right there.

Man, by design, is not perfect. Man strives for perfection but he will not reach it. In physical design we may think we've seen perfect but that is irrelavent.

Man was given free will and that right there precludes perfection. As we continue to advance and evolve we may get closer but we will never have all those answers -(take the leap with me here, Max) until we are joined with Him in Heaven.

Fair enough! Mind you, I have too much of Hume in me to personally buy that; I am a "perception is reality" kind of person, and so even when hypothesizing about God, I really find it difficult to seperate what I know from what could be. But that having been said, I see your argument perfectly.

Disclaimer: I myself have undergone a loss of faith, so the following discussion is not meant to be proselytizing.

For practical reasons, science tries not to resort to deus ex machina , since: 1) the existence of God is by definition not testable by experiment (which is finite); and 2) any theory which posits divine intervention is open-ended, and leads to needless complications like the old Ptolemaic epicyclic cosmology. Nonetheless, recent discoveries in cosmology may force a rethink of this stance. After centuries of science arguing that Man is not the special creation of God, and successively demoting him in status (Copernicus removing the Earth from the center of the universe, Hubble demonstrating the Milky Way is an ordinary galaxy out of billions, and Darwin hypothesising the evolution of man from hominid precursors), it turns out that ordinary matter is only a very small fraction of the total mass of the universe. (The rest are unknown substances called dark matter and dark energy respectively.) Put another way, ordinary matter can be considered privileged, since it is the sole material used in the construction of living beings. How did 1% of the total mass of the universe concentrate across space and time to form us?

How did 1% of the total mass of the universe concentrate across space and time to form us?

So that God could show us through His creation something of His character and nature?

I believe He created the universe in just such a way that we would ponder it, discover it, explore it...and find His fingerprints all over it.

He created us for the sole purpose of relationship with Him. He made it this way so that we can know Him.

I'm just awed at His creativity and majesty.

I'm completely Athesist. Religion and science to me are way two sepearate sections of life. I personally feel that if they are mixed, evidence is overridden by belief and the truth is never found. Science is my religion, so guys... try not to mock it :) I am currently studying biology and wish I had spare spots for physics and chem.

The problem with many religious people in my mind is their ignorance of scientific finds, such as my cousin and best friend. They don't have a clue about evolution and think that it was soley to do with animals wanting to "morph" and thus did. When they are told that we have similar DNA and heritage links, they think that we have evolved to be what we are from modern apes. We didn't, we evolved from a "similar heritage". How else can you explain a 98% - 99% DNA similarity?

Also, a big fact of misunderstanding is that evolution is the offspring of "natural selection" and mutation of DNA sequencing. As I said earlier, its not because of a simiple need to adapt to an environment.

And Matthew, life can be seen in all of its majestic being in other ways then beleiving that some guy with a beard made it for us. I live life to enjoy it, and for my friends, family and my nation. I have these people to take care of me, i need no higher being of life. It does not all come down to pure chance, and i would prefer to live life as I want and decide then having a "precreated flight plan". Is it at all surprising why a great many (but not all, especially in this forum, you guys rock!) Christens come across as bitter and detached when talking about science?

Heck, if anyone wants to argue with me elsewhere, e-mail me.

Check out the Talk.Origins Archive for refutations of all the arguments against evolution that one commonly hears.

There are more than a few of the volunteers at the Talk.Origins Archive who are christian, and they, like Rosemary, the pope, and many others, are able to reconcile their religion with their acceptance of the evidence in favour of evolution.

Well, as a Christian, I do have to agree that Blade has a point about many if not most Christians. Many of them let faith carry them too far, and do not explore facts and issues enough. Consequently, many of them reject certain scientific findings because they see science as an attempt to disprove or discredit their faith.

While some people do use science in that manner, that is not the objective for most scientists. The tragic thing, is that the war of science vs religion was initiated by early christians for that reason. They feared science would take away from man's view of God. I think they just didn't trust people enough.

Science is not at all incompatible with religion to me. They are talking about two different things. One is the means and the other is a method.

Evolution is widely misunderstood, largly because that one word is used to describe several different things. Evolution in some forms undeniably exists. Creatures do evolve over time, this is undisputably proven. When looking at macro-evolution or the evolution of one species evolving into another, it is less clear. Yet even if that is what happened. Even if there is an explination for how all the variety of life on this planet formed, does that take away from God? I think not.

Consider it this way. Think of a magician. Does it make him any less talented to see how he does his tricks? Perhaps some of the awe and wonder are gone. In their place is a bit of objectivity and reason. I think that is a good thing. Knowing the method of something doesn't take away from the ability of the practitioner.

To me the world is an amazing place. The way that all of the insects, plants, and animals all interact, adapt, and evolve is amazing. Nature seems to recover from everything, life adapts, evolves and survives. It is either an amazing occurance or a fantastic design. I believe it was a design, and knowing and understanding more of how it works doesn't chage that or reduce God's role in creating it in my mind.

Rosemary,

True, and perhaps here we'll get only a good debate...but all too often these things degenerate into a few people denigrating all religion, and a few others saying that the Pope is anti-Christ.

Lone Dissenter,

I have heard that "day" is actually a mistranslation, and "era" or somesuch would be better, although I don't know whether there's any truth in it.

There isn't. Genesis clearly intends to depict solar days, even defining "yom" as a time frame including evening and morning. Hebrew scholars are in agreement on this, even those who don't actually believe it.

Holli,

The Paluxy tracks aren't the greatest argument to use. There are questions about their authenticity.

For some useful resources from Ph.D. scientists who believe in a young earth creation, see Creation Q & A.

No one can "know" history and science by themselves. Recorded history is just that - recorded. It is the oral and written testimony of eyewitnesses to people and events. All of these "testimonies" inevitably include the perspective of the supposed witness.

No one alive today "knows" there was a Civil War in the United States. We "believe" there was a Civil War based on the variety of supporting testimonials from multiple sources. This "belief" is a Judgement based on the Credibility of the available testimonials. And that belief is certainly "reasonable" because of various "proofs."

The same logic applies to Science. How many that claim a belief in science over religion - as if the two are necessarily opposed - have actually studied the fossils, done the experiments, made the mathematical calculations required to arrive at the scientific theories they so vigorously defend. I submit even professional scientists rely on the "testimony" of other scientists. This too includes a Judgement based on the credibility of the sources. That judgement might include a measure of "preconception" - the tendency to give greater weight to "evidence" that supports a previously held belief.

The arrogance of historians and scientists is that they deny that the "facts" of history and science require the same degree of "faith" that religion requires.

Since none of us individually have the time to investigate every claim of history, science, and religion, all of us are limited to making decisions about what we believe based on the judgements we make about the credibility of the sources we rely upon.

These judgements do not have to contradict one another, and I "believe" the "truth" is that history, religion, and science do coexist with each other in perfect harmony. The disconnect occurs because of the differences in perspective and truthfulness of the sources we are bound to rely on.

Blade:

The problem with many religious people in my mind is their ignorance of scientific finds...

I feel for you. It's always terrible when people misrepresent your position in order to ridicule it.

I get it all the time, when people say thing like:

And Matthew, life can be seen in all of its majestic being in other ways then beleiving that some guy with a beard made it for us.

Don't you hate it when people do that?

Scott: The main difference (at least for science...not so much for history) is that scientific discoveries are testable and reproducible. Even if I've never witnessed hubble's redshift personally, I could go to a observatory and check it out. Religion is untestable...and therefore requires (a different sort of) faith.