This essay will appear asap on JCnot4me.com
Okay boys and girls. Mark Smith of JCnot4me.com asked me to write some stuff about Genesis and science, especially for Homer Simpson. That's a helluva thing to ask a guy who runs a tavern and makes book, but what the hell I'll give it a shot. Pay attention Homer, this one's for you.
Genesis 1
1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.
Here we have the first recorded reference to baseball. In the Big Inning. Seriously though, God is outside the scope of science. If God isn't outside the scope of science, then "God" should be a valid subject for public schools. So, evolutionists such as myself should watch our step here.
Was there a beginning? Current cosmology says so. The Big Banger. Back when Carl Sagan filmed that way cool "Cosmos" thing, the Oscillating Theory of the universe was in vogue. What's that? I got it here someplace..okay, here goes. This theory states that the universe has been eternally undergoing "Big Bangs" followed by "Big Crunches" as the universe expands and then collapses in upon itself, only to be "born again" (hehehe) in another Big Bang. That's a helluva thing too.
Actually, Homer,I never stopped having faith in the Little Oscillator That Could, even though science left it behind. Recent developments are promising a return of this elegant and perfect model of the universe, a model that makes the questions "Who?" and "Why?" irrelevant since an eternal universe needs no explanation, it simply is.
The problem with the Oscillating theory of the universe was the inadequacy of the mass of the universe to slow down, stop, and finally reverse the expansion of the universe. (Yeah, the universe is expanding. Google "red shift" Homer 'cause I ain't gonna go into the red shift here) In other words, there just wasn't enough "stuff" in the universe to generate sufficient gravity to slow the damn thing down and stop it and bring it crashing together again. I hope you're enjoying all this technical science jargon and stuff.
What are these recent developments which I mentioned? I'm glad you didn't ask. First, the discovery that neutrinos (of which the universe is brimming over with) do in fact have mass after all. So little mass as to be virtually nonexistent when you're dealing with a single neutrino, but fill the universe with them and you've got a source of mass to be reckoned with.
Dark matter. It exists. Hey, Google it 'cause I ain't gonna explain it here Homer. It exists and has mass and therefore has a gravitational effect.
Hubble telescope. The Hubble telescope generates so much gravity..ha ha. Actually, a number of photographs taken with the Hubble 'scope of sections of the "sky" that were thought to be devoid of galaxies have been shown to contain hundreds if not thousands of galaxies. In other words, the universe contains hundreds and possibly thousand (possibly more) galaxies than anyone figured. Go figure. So, the universe generates hundreds, perhaps thousands (or more) times the gravitational forces than previously thought. Even the low end, hundreds, is more than sufficient to reverse cosmic expansion and bring about a Big Crunch and a new Big Bang.
The extra gravitational attraction has also been confirmed by the discovery of the filamentary structure of the universe. Galaxies are not flying apart all crazy like, but instead display a pronounced gravitational relationship expressed as a filamentary structure.
Taken together, these findings are more than sufficient to revive the Elegant and Perfect Model we call the Oscillating Universe. So there.
Evolutionists, ZERO. Creationists, ZERO. Me and Carl Sagan, ONE.
2 And the earth was waste and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep: and the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.
"Tohu and bohu" would be better rendered "chaotic and vacant," or "chaos and vacant" than "waste and void." The "ruach", wind of the elohim, the gods, does not carry any of the Christian connotations of the "Spirit of God" in this verse. Young's Literal reads "fluttered" where the ASV says "moved." My own vote is for "vibrated." Why? "Vibrate" is every bit as descriptive as "flutter" but has the added advantage of being somewhat suggestive and salacious.
3 And God said, Let there be light: and there was light.
I have seen some criticisms of the Genesis story because it states that light was created before the sun was created. I'm a convinced evolutionist, but I have to side with the Bible Thumpers here. Light came into being at the moment of the Big Bangeroo, "billions and billions" of years before the sun. So far, evolutionists ZERO. Creationists ONE. Carl Sagan and me, ONE.
4 And God saw the light, that it was good: and God divided the light from the darkness.
Okay, now we're starting to get weird if we're going to take this Creation Myth as literal science. What did the elohim, the gods, make that separated the light from darkness? We now know the Earth is a globe, and that the axial rotation of the globe accounts for the separation of light from darkness (Speaking in terms of phenomenology and whatnot, you know?) However, if one is a Trekker "Lost In Space" it's pretty evident there is no Cosmic mechanism of sperating light from darkness. There ain't some big blankie out there keeping light on one side of the universe and dark on the other, k Homer? Verse five is a further Revelation (Oooh..I couldn't resist!) of this fact. Light and darkness made night and day possible. The ancients who wrote Genesis had no clue this was due to the axial rotation of the globe, they just knew there was "dark" and "light." Personally, I think Genesis is a lot more fun if you take it as anj allegory. Remind me to post some stuff about this in the neat future. Okay I'm not losing anybody here by being too technical and stuff am I? No? Good.
5 and God calleth to the light `Day,' and to the darkness He hath called `Night;' and there is an evening, and there is a morning -- day one.
Is it "nighttime" in interstellar and intergalactic space? Of course not. You're hanging out in space with darkness and light all the time. Obviously, night and day have only to do with a rotating globe, a planet. So, this verse, like verse 4, makes no sense unless you confine it's meaning to the earth. Confined to the earth, this account really has nothing to say to us scientifically as to the structure of the universe (cosmology) or to how it began (cosmogony). Since it ain't science, then don't be dragging into science classrooms, k?
Evolutionists, ONE. Creationists, ONE. Me and Carl Sagan, TWO.
6 And God said, Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters. 7 And God made the firmament, and divided the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament: and it was so. 8 And God called the firmament Heaven. And there was evening and there was morning, a second day. 9 And God said, Let the waters under the heavens be gathered together unto one place, and let the dry land appear: and it was so.
This is really "out there" now if we take this as science. "Firmament" (rawkeeah) is literally "stretched out thinness" very much like a lot of evolutionist and creationist arguments. Ha ha. Jesus I crack myself up. Okay, here we go. A good argument can be made that rawkeeah should be translated as "dome" and in fact a lot of Bibles do exactly that. Its a hell of a lot better than "firmament" which tells us precisely nothing. We're out in space now, checking out all the orbiting space junk and debris. We don't see a firmament separating waters above the rawkeeah from the waters below the rawkeeah. Why is that? Well, Homer it's like this: The rawkeeah is very much like Santa Claus on account of it not existing. Sorry to burst your bubble Homer.
This is very simple to understand if you stop being a MODERNIST and trying to make the Bible say MODERN things. Stop being an ANACHRONISTIC MODERNIST trying to force your MODERN concerns and understandings on a venerable ancient SPIRITUAL book. You peeps who think you're honoring the book of Genesis by remaining clueless here, you need to understand that you're destroying Genesis. It can't stand up to the demands you're making on it and the views you're trying to force out of it because THEY AINT THERE. Eventually, if you leave Genesis in the scientific pen, the Pit Bull of Science will rip it to shreds and it will be forever discredited and that will be a shame.
What creationists are doing is a lot like someone who judges a legal document by standards of poetry, or a poem by legal standards. You either wind up with bad poetry or a legal document that ain't worth the powder it would take to blow it to hell.
I am a CONSERVATIVE when it comes to Genesis as I wish to CONSERVE the original meanings intended by the ancient authors. I am not a MODERNIST who reads modern concepts and concerns back into an ancient document. The authors of Genesis were concerned with spiritual concerns and stuff. In their world, the sun-moon-stars were all GODS with their own domains of influence. The authors of Genesis wanted to de-sacralize the world, show that it isn't a God or gods but merely the creation of a God or gods. Believe it or not, it was this de-sacralizing of nature by Genesis that made science possible! Are you still with me Homer? Before Genesis, people were too afraid of nature, since it was made up of various gods, to "do science." Genesis made science possible through its' spiritual message, but it isn't in itself a scientific document.
I hold Genesis in very high regard because of this. Because of Genesis, modern science was made possible, and I am alive today because of it. What, you think there would be cartoons and The Simpsons without science? Get your head out of your butt Homer. Plus, it's de-sacralizing of nature makes for a much more beautiful and elegant Myth than the theogonies of the pagan world. I think anyway. Maybe thats just old Moe.
Okay. Back to rawkeeah. This whole scenario is simple when you understand the ancient Semitic worldview. They understood the earth to be round but flat, supported either by four pillars, or nothing, depending on who was telling the story. Placed over the earth was a dome, a rawkeeah, and through this rawkeeah the Light of God shone. The stars and planets were little holes in this dome through which the Light of God shone. Above this rawkeeah, this dome, was water. So, this rawkeeah separated the waters that were above it from those below. Rain resulted when "the windows of heaven" were opened and some of the water above the rawkeeah was allowed through by God.
If your religion can't handle Genesis being a spiritual book with spiritual truths to teach, and not science, you and your religion are confused. Religion aint science and science shouldn't be religion.
Okay, now we're gonna skip a few verses. Just a quick comment on the goombas who try to make the days of genesis into ages: Duh. It says EVENING and MORNING. A period of time seperated by evening and morning is not an age. Sheesh. The Hebrew word olam could have been used here if an "age" were in view. If these "days" are really ages, I pity the fool that got stuck in that long ass night. :(
Okay. Evolution, TWO. Creationists, ONE. Carl Sagan and me, THREE.
14 And God said, Let there be lights in the firmament of heaven to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days and years: 17 And God set them in the firmament of heaven to give light upon the earth, 18 and to rule over the day and over the night, and to divide the light from the darkness: and God saw that it was good.
Oh yeah. This is great science. Not. This is exactly what I was talking about. The lights in the rawkeeah. So, according to Biblical literalists, billions of galaxies so far away that none of their light is ever seen on the earth, and therefore they play no role in dividing day from night, or in mapping out days and months and seasons and years, are nonetheless there for that purpose. Swell. Stop kicking Genesis into your space-bucket pal.
15 and let them be for lights in the firmament of heaven to give light upon the earth: and it was so.
Ditto for this verse.
16 And God made the two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: he made the stars also.
Oh man. The earth precedes the sun! Back this up with actual SCIENCE. Ya cant. This is a faith assertion, much like claiming little green goblins live on a planet billions of light years away. Its an unfalsifiable claim and therefore nonsensical. "He made the stars also." Yeah, they were just an afterthought. Pretty little lights in the sky, not gigantic balls of thermonuclear violence that could hold millions (and some, billions) of earths! They don't have their own worlds circling them! No! They're just pretty little lights in the sky. See? This is what I mean by sticking Genesis where it don't belong, Homer. It belongs under the heading SPIR-I-TU-AL not SCI-EN-CE. Leave it where it was never meant to be and it will get the hell beaten out of it.
This verse is half right in that the earth did precede the moon.
EVOLUTIONISTS..hmm...FOUR. Creationists, ONE and a HALF. Carl Sagan and Me, FIVE.
Whew. Okay Homer. Come back some other time, k? I got a tavern to run.