Hello from mhatch

[mhatch]

Hi everyone, I'm joining because I found an interesting thread here quite by accident. I was looking for the book link for the book 'Why Is The Universe The Way It Is?" by Dr. Hugh Ross, and one of your members started a thread with the same title. The discussion was very interesting, and I decided to join in.

 

I am a software architect by trade (currently at Microsoft), but have been studying issues of science and faith, primarily through the organization Reasons To Believe (RTB). As a Christian, I have always had quite a bit of trouble with the common belief that the universe is 'young' from a biblical perspective, when science clearly tells us that the universe is 13.7 Billion years old. RTB is a science based think-tank that has developed predictive creation models that comport with what science tells us. Their view and approach is very refreshing, always being certain to understand explain a natural perspective before providing a creation view.

 

We need more of this, in my opinion - open and honest discussion of the issues without being afraid, threatened, or argumentative. I also think Christians should not assert God as the answer to unknowns (called 'God of the Gaps').

 

The more we learn about the finely tuned nature and uniqueness of our world, science's answers to the tough questions frequently align with a biblical world view (The Big Bang being the most obvious of these, the 'Out of Africa' hypothesis for the origin of man being another).

 

I look forward to discussing these topics with you!

[Donk]

Hi there, mhatch...

 

Hmmm... you're a Christian and you work for Microsoft. :) That gives people around here two reasons to be deeply - perhaps permanently - suspicious of you!

 

The matters you're interested in often come up for discussion, but the arguments usually get overemotional. If you can keep your nerve and stay sensible, you might enjoy it here.

[freeztar]

Welcome to Hypography! :)

[mhatch]

Thanks Donk! I like you guys already.

 

To prove your point about Christians + Microsoft - there is an internal distribution list at Microsoft for Christian discussion, and I don't subscribe because it gets too emotional and heated. (Plus it ticks me off that people seem to post to it throughout the day - are they getting any work done? Bad example too...)

 

I don't believe anyone should be critical of a position until they understand it well enough to speak for it. That cuts both ways too - my brother (an agnostic) and I often discuss religion, but often he attacks Christianity when he doesn't understand what he's arguing against.

[CraigD]

Welcome to hypography mhatch! :)

I am a software architect by trade (currently at Microsoft) ...

I’m an application programmer by trade, and practically by lifestyle (began getting positive feedback for programming when 1 was 16, became my principle livelihood at 22, my sole one at 25, and remains so to my present age of 49). As I know nobody personally (in the flesh or online) who works at Microsoft, but am intimate with the Windows API in its many versions, I’m very curious to hear from a technical person in that company, and hope you’ll share your technical inclinations in the computer science forum.

... but have been studying issues of science and faith, primarily through the organization Reasons To Believe (RTB).

Following your link from Re: Why is the Universe the way it is? to the RTB website, I was immediately appalled by the “do you know” quote that appeared on its website’s homepage:

Did you know that naturalism fails the coherence test? According to science, an effect cannot be greater than its cause. In the case of evolution, the “effect” (human intelligence) is exponentially greater than its supposed cause.

If RTB’s mission is to repair the schism that has developed (fairly recently from a historic perspective, and in arguably only a minority of Christian denominations) between natural science and religion, rhetoric of this kind seems to me ill advised. Rhetorical (intended to win a debate) intent aside, the statement’s an example of a straw man fallacy, as no scientific formalism states, after defining the quantity to which the word “greater” is being applied, “an effect cannot be greater than its cause”. Were this the case, say when the quantity in question is physical work, we’d have a scientific hypothesis that a furnace cannot be lit with a match, a hypothesis so routinely experimentally contradicted that it’s never seriously made!

As a Christian, I have always had quite a bit of trouble with the common belief that the universe is 'young' from a biblical perspective, when science clearly tells us that the universe is 13.7 Billion years old. RTB is a science based think-tank that has developed predictive creation models that comport with what science tells us. Their view and approach is very refreshing, always being certain to understand explain a natural perspective before providing a creation view.

 

We need more of this, in my opinion - open and honest discussion of the issues without being afraid, threatened, or argumentative. I also think Christians should not assert God as the answer to unknowns (called 'God of the Gaps').

As an atheist, I share your discomfort with young Earth creationism and the God of the Gaps argument. However, from my brief exploration of it, I’m not favorable impressed by RTB.

 

In addition to the issue of rhetorical tone I noted above, my brief exploration of RTB’s website reveals that the links I found interesting weren’t to readable texts, even in non-free subscription journals, but to books for purchase. In my experience, this strongly suggests its authors have a greater interest in commercial gain that the honest dissemination of ideas and encouragement of discourse, and makes me fairly certain in recommending you and other well intentioned Christian apologists avoid this organization.

 

I recommend reading Gould’s short essay Nonoverlapping Magisteria for exposure to idea that religion – at least Roman Catholicism – is not at odds with science, due to the doctrine that the church provides given truth, science revealed truth, and “truth cannot contradict truth”. According to this doctrine, when given and revealed truth appear to contradict one another, we humans are failing to understand one or the other – for example, by misinterpreting scientific evidence, or, more likely, misunderstanding religious ideas. The most common source of the latter, IMHO, is Biblical literalism, an doctrinal approach that credible churches, including the Roman Catholic church, strongly reject in favor of the view that sacred texts are primarily metaphorical, and must be interpreted in light of new revealed truth.

 

For an fictional foray into the subject, I recommend the somewhat controversial (among science fiction readers) hard science fiction novel Calculating God, by Robert Sawyer, a competent and thoughtful author of my generation, and the old but still thought provoking Rama series of novels by the late and famous Arthur C Clarke.

[lemit]

I'm a non-practicing Methodist and a Skeptic. I don't know why so many religious people think all answers to all questions must ultimately come from God. That seems very insecure. If they--and you--were secure in their faith, then science could do what it does without posing a threat of any kind.

 

We seem to live in an age of Doubting Thomases, when people feel they need tactile proof of the existence of God. There is no such thing. You won't find it in science. You won't find it in technology. It is only in Faith that you can find God. Why is that so difficult for people to understand now?

 

Or, are you and Time_Travel out here in the wilderness proselytizing among the heathens? (You won't find God that way either.) If so, you should check the rules on promotion of religion. You also should read a little philosophy, not the inbred religiosity of the paranoid Christian Right, but real philosophy, philosophy that seeks to understand without preconceptions, seeks to explore, seeks wisdom.

 

It is by opening your mind, and only by opening your mind, that you might possibly find that those answers, the answers science provides, have been coming from God all along.

 

Other than that, welcome to Hypography.

 

--lemit

[mhatch]

and hope you’ll share your technical inclinations in the computer science forum.

I look forward to the opportunity!

 

However, from my brief exploration of it, I’m not favorable impressed by RTB.

 

I think both of your comments against RTB web site are very valid. From my deeper engagement with them, I would say this is a 'surface' problem and one of how they market using the web site. One of their primary audiences is to the lay Christian community, and they provide some of the only old-earth favorable material that I have seen. They have likely fallen into a pattern of recommending their own material frequently. I don't believe this stems from a capitalistic bent.

 

I recommend reading Gould’s short essay Nonoverlapping Magisteria for exposure to idea that religion – at least Roman Catholicism – is not at odds with science, due to the doctrine that the church provides given truth, science revealed truth, and “truth cannot contradict truth”.

Thanks for the recommendation, I'll take a look. This sounds a lot like the teaching of General & Special Revelation I have been studying. General Revelation refers to the phyical universe (Revealed Truth) and Special Revelation refers to God's special word in the Bible (Given Truth). The primary difference I recall about Gould's Magisteria is the Nonoverlapping part - I would put forward that IF the bible is truth, then what it has to say about creation overlaps with the scientific models for the origin of the universe and development of the earth to support advanced life.

 

For an fictional foray into the subject, I recommend the somewhat controversial (among science fiction readers) hard science fiction novel Calculating God, by Robert Sawyer, a competent and thoughtful author of my generation, and the old but still thought provoking Rama series of novels by the late and famous Arthur C Clarke.

 

I have read and really enjoy Clarke's Rama series, I'll look for Sawyer's work next time I'm at Half Price Books :).

 

Thanks again for your comments, critique, and suggestions!

[mhatch]

We seem to live in an age of Doubting Thomases, when people feel they need tactile proof of the existence of God. There is no such thing. You won't find it in science. You won't find it in technology. It is only in Faith that you can find God. Why is that so difficult for people to understand now?

 

I agree and frankly I don't think it would - or will - change many people's minds when God does reveal himself. The validity of the Bible and Jesus' life on Earth is well established from a documentary/secular perspective , so one could argue he already did show up once.

 

Or, are you and Time_Travel out here in the wilderness proselytizing among the heathens? (You won't find God that way either.)

 

I can't speak for Time_Travel since I don't know him (her?). It would be dishonest for me to say that I don't hope to bring more openness to faith by participating here, but you won't find me getting into heated arguments or taking offenses. More than likely I'll just let any heated remarks remain unanswered (unless there is a scientific/factual argument to be made).

 

Thanks for the welcome lemit!

 

-Mike

[pamela]

hello mike,

welcome!!:)

[Galapagos]

welcome to the forum!

[mhatch]

Welcome to hypography mhatch! :)

I recommend reading Gould’s short essay Nonoverlapping Magisteria for exposure to idea that religion – at least Roman Catholicism – is not at odds with science, due to the doctrine that the church provides given truth, science revealed truth, and “truth cannot contradict truth”. According to this doctrine, when given and revealed truth appear to contradict one another, we humans are failing to understand one or the other – for example, by misinterpreting scientific evidence, or, more likely, misunderstanding religious ideas. The most common source of the latter, IMHO, is Biblical literalism, an doctrinal approach that credible churches, including the Roman Catholic church, strongly reject in favor of the view that sacred texts are primarily metaphorical, and must be interpreted in light of new revealed truth.

 

Hi Craig, I read through the summary of Gould's Nonoverlapping Magisteria that you recommended - very interesting reading - and his experiences and comments are noteworthy. Thank you for pointing me to it.

 

My criticisms of the paper: 1) He groups the positions into two stereotyped camps, which is an oversimplification (one he may have made out of necessity, since to articulate the breadth of positions would take some space). There are a broad continuum of beliefs, even within the Theistic Evolution position. For him to identify all other Creationist Christians as a 'splinter movement' overlooks or tries to marginalize a large and growing population.

2) For a man of his learning and stature (and background) to write off the Bible as something that has no literal value overlooks the overwhelming manuscript evidence - even from a purely secular perspective, the Bible stands alone in its historicity - outweighing the similar ancient literature by a large margin.

 

I believe the Bible to have both literal and metaphorical value (each passage must be interpreted in it's context). My own position is that the two magisteria are like a venn diagram, have very large areas upon which they cannot speak to the other, but there is some area of overlap. My creation belief falls neither in the Young Earth camp, nor the Theistic Evolution camp, but rather what is called 'Old-Earth Progressive Creationism'. Science has proven the Earth is 13.7 Billion years old, but the evidence supporting macro-evolution between species is not convincing. Micro-evolution through mutation or genetic drift certainly does effect the features within a species, but cannot turn a wolf-like creature into a whale.

 

In Progressive or Day-Age creationism, Genesis creation days are read as long but finite periods of time. The creation of light on day 1 (Gen. 1:3) actually reflects the transition of the earth's atmosphere from opaque to translucent (i.e. the Sun already existed). The creation of the 'great lights - sun & moon' on day 4 reflects the transition from translucent to transparent. A word study in the Hebrew verbs supports this reading.

 

Anyway, thanks for recommending the article to me. Point me to more!

 

-Mike

[Essay]

Science has proven the Earth is 13.7 Billion years old...

 

===

In Progressive or Day-Age creationism, Genesis creation days are read as long but finite periods of time. The creation of light on day 1 (Gen. 1:3) actually reflects the transition of the earth's atmosphere from opaque to translucent (i.e. the Sun already existed). The creation of the 'great lights - sun & moon' on day 4 reflects the transition from translucent to transparent. A word study in the Hebrew verbs supports this reading.

 

Anyway, thanks for recommending the article to me. Point me to more!

 

-Mike

 

Hopefully that whole website isn't based on this mistake.

It is the universe that is 13.7.... I think the Earth -and our sun- are only 4-5 billion....

 

===

But about Day-Age creationism, I'd noticed myself that the sequence on development in Genesis is mostly consistent with the cosmological timeline.

 

The one glaring exception was the grasses, which evolved much later than is indicated by the account in (Gen. 1:12) -and trees? too. Grasses should be up on the 5th day. Really the whole 3rd and 4th days are reversed, imho, but I suppose that's just a matter of interpretation. Of course if you read "seaweeds" instead of "grasses," it fits better for the category.

 

Do you know of a Dr. Rob Carter -involved with this sort of scientific interpretation of biblical history?

 

~ :)

[mhatch]

Hopefully that whole website isn't based on this mistake.

It is the universe that is 13.7.... I think the Earth -and our sun- are only 4-5 billion....

 

I did indeed mean the universe is 13.7 byo and earth is 4.5byo. Good catch.

 

The one glaring exception was the grasses, which evolved much later than is indicated by the account in (Gen. 1:12) -and trees? too. Grasses should be up on the 5th day. Really the whole 3rd and 4th days are reversed, imho, but I suppose that's just a matter of interpretation. Of course if you read "seaweeds" instead of "grasses," it fits better for the category.

 

Vegetation (grass and trees) appears on the 3rd day after the necessary light from day 2 - "Let the land produce vegetation: seed-bearing plants and trees on the land that bear fruit with seed in it, according to their various kinds." (Gen 1:11)

 

Do you know of a Dr. Rob Carter -involved with this sort of scientific interpretation of biblical history?

~ :)

 

I'm not familiar with Dr. Carter.

[Essay]

Vegetation (grass and trees) appears on the 3rd day after the necessary light from day 2 - "Let the land produce vegetation: seed-bearing plants and trees on the land that bear fruit with seed in it, according to their various kinds."

 

My only point (other than days 3 & 4 being switched) was that "grass" doesn't appear in the fossil record until long after dinosaurs and mammals evolved; and long after the "great sea monsters" and "winged flying creatures" of Gen. 1:21, on the fifth day.

Grasses didn't pop up just because light was available, but they did have a large influence on the planet's climate - setting the stage well for man's arrival.

 

Now if by grass they meant "seaweed" or even "ferns," then the timeline would be more concordant with the timeline of the fossil record.

[mhatch]

My only point (other than days 3 & 4 being switched) was that "grass" doesn't appear in the fossil record until long after dinosaurs and mammals evolved; and long after the "great sea monsters" and "winged flying creatures" of Gen. 1:21, on the fifth day.

Grasses didn't pop up just because light was available, but they did have a large influence on the planet's climate - setting the stage well for man's arrival.

 

Now if by grass they meant "seaweed" or even "ferns," then the timeline would be more concordant with the timeline of the fossil record.

 

I'm not sure I follow you Essay - are you saying that grasses specifically do not appear in the scientific (fossil) record until after dinosaurs, and therefore the Genesis must be out of order? Can you provide a reference substantiating the claim that grass is not apparent until late in the fossil record? Regardless, the biblical term 'vegetation' (deshe’ /deh·sheh) is probably more broad than the specific plant family of 'grass/es' (although it is frequently translated that way). The root word Dasha in the Hebrew means "to sprout, shoot, grow green", so the emphasis may be on the new complex plant life that God is causing to spring up.

[Essay]

I'm not sure I follow you Essay - are you saying that grasses specifically do not appear in the scientific (fossil) record until after dinosaurs, and therefore the Genesis must be out of order? Can you provide a reference substantiating the claim that grass is not apparent until late in the fossil record? Regardless, the biblical term 'vegetation' (deshe’ /deh·sheh) is probably more broad than the specific plant family of 'grass/es' (although it is frequently translated that way). The root word Dasha in the Hebrew means "to sprout, shoot, grow green", so the emphasis may be on the new complex plant life that God is causing to spring up.

Agreed!

 

...but....

Yes I did mean "grasses" specifically.

Eocene Epoch: World of Earth Science

The Eocene Epoch, second of the five epochs into which the Tertiary Period is divided, lasted from 54 to 38 million years ago. Mammals became the dominant land animals during this epoch. The Eocene Epoch (meaning dawn of the recent period....

 

Many flowering plants evolved in the Eocene Epoch. Especially important are the grasses, which had first appeared in the late Cretaceous Period but did not become diverse and ubiquitous until the Eocene Epoch.

Abundant grass encouraged the evolution of early grazing animals, including Eohippus. Familiar tree species such as birch, cedar, chestnut, elm, and beech flourished during the Eocene Epoch; aquatic and insect life were much the same as today.

 

Grasses - Encyclopedia of Earth

...the oldest reliable megafossil grass fossils were spikelets and inflorescences from the latest Paleocene (about 58 mya).

In the late Oligocene (about 30 to 24 mya) fossils of central North America, more diverse grass fossils were found, including both archaic forms and quite a few living genera. By the Miocene (24 mya), many more modern genera appeared in the fossil record. A great deal of the history of grasses was clearly not captured in the fossil record, notably the evolutionary radiation from primitive proto-bamboos to modern grasses in the Eocene and Oligocene. By the early Miocene, however, grasses in all our modern subfamilies were present, indicating that our modern taxonomic and physiologic diversity had been well established by that time.

 

===

 

So I guess grasses were around in dinosaur times, just not extensively.

 

Tree Identification - tree evolution

"Trees started appearing quite late in our earths history, about three hundred and seventy million years ago. It is hard to imagine that the first animals had existed without the shade, protection, and foods that trees provide, but somehow they did."

 

But there is a large time difference between the emergence of trees and grasses.

 

Evolution of plants - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

...the evolution of flowering plants in the Triassic (~200 million years ago), which exploded in the Cretaceous and Tertiary. The latest major group of plants to evolve were the grasses, which became important in the mid Tertiary, from around 40 million years ago. The grasses, as well as many other groups, evolved new mechanisms of metabolism to survive the low CO2 and warm, dry conditions of the tropics over the last 10 million years.

===

 

I guess that's too much complexity to make a broad statement about the biblical details, but I still think it's surprising that grasses evolved so recently compared to flowers and trees.