Processes and Perspectives; Sacred and Secular

Processes and Perspectives;

Sacred and Secular

D. George Harrison

iUniverse, Inc.

Bloomington

Processes and Perspectives;Sacred and Secular

Copyright © 2011 D. George Harrison

All rights reserved. No part of this book may be used or reproduced by any means, graphic, electronic, or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, taping or by any information storage retrieval system without the written permission of the publisher except in the case of brief quotations embodied in critical articles and reviews.

iUniverse books may be ordered through booksellers or by contacting:

iUniverse

1663 Liberty Drive

Bloomington, IN 47403

www.iuniverse.com

1-800-Authors (1-800-288-4677)

Because of the dynamic nature of the Internet, any Web addresses or links contained in this book may have changed since publication and may no longer be valid. The views expressed in this work are solely those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of the publisher, and the publisher hereby disclaims any responsibility for them.

Any people depicted in stock imagery provided by Thinkstock are models, and such images are being used for illustrative purposes only.

Certain stock imagery © Thinkstock.

ISBN: 978-1-4620-0972-5 (pbk)

ISBN: 978-1-4620-0973-2 (ebk)

Printed in the United States of America

iUniverse rev. date: 4/7/2011

Contents

Preface

Introduction

Geological Time Line

Day One

The Words of Day One

The Science of Day One

Day One Conclusions

Day Two

The Words of Day Two

The Science of Day Two

Day Two Conclusions

Day Three

The Words of Day Three

The Science of Day Three

Day Three Conclusions

Day Four

Day Four Perspectives

The Words of Day Four

The Transition

The Science of Day Four

Day Four Conclusions

Day Five

The Words of Day Five

The Science of Day Five

Day Five Conclusions

Day Six

Words and Perspectives of Day Six

The Science of Day Six

Day Six (The Longest Day),

Part Deux

The Words of Genesis 2

Day Six Conclusions

Issues

Closing Perspectives

Literature Cited

Preface

Long before Charles Darwin and his The Origin of Species, there has been a degree of enmity and distrust between the scientific community and the Christian community. This has resulted in severe polarization between the two that is only getting worse. As a professional biologist (now retired), this is not only unfortunate, but also unnecessary in my opinion. Each side spends an inordinate amount of time and effort to refute and rebuke the other’s points of view. That is, they spend a great deal of time emphasizing their differences to the point of being indistinguishable in their entrenched dislike for one another. This work is an attempt to show why and how one individual can accept both camps’ basic doctrines without compromising or twisting the doctrines of either science or scripture, especially regarding the creation account.

I consider this work quite different from other related, mainstream treatments of this topic. Primarily, I am a biologist who is also a born-again Christian. I also accept not only the foundational beliefs of Christianity (e.g., the Trinity, Jesus Christ is the son of God), but also the essentials of the modern concept of the evolution of the universe and of life (e.g., the Big Bang Theory and Organic Evolution, all of which are discussed in more detail in this book). For me personally, there has never been a conflict between science and theology in general, and evolution and Genesis specifically. Since the fourth grade, I have been fascinated with prehistoric creatures and how they came about, including the variety and adaptations of existing life forms. Because of this interest in how life works, I became a biologist. The vast majority of my professional biologist life was in service to the U.S. Government (military and civilian). I functioned as a civilian oceanographer and ecologist while with the U.S. Geological Survey and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers respectively. While in the U.S. Air Force, I was a missile launch officer and science officer. For over three decades, I collected material related to this subject and made notes without intending to publish. However, as the years rolled on, the reference materials, notes, and perspectives accumulated to the point where they all resulted in a manuscript and, ultimately, this book. Such is the nature of some processes because of perspectives.

Interestingly, the only way anything comes to be is through a process, whether it is this book, a child, a rock, a universe or faith. All are the result of a series of numerous, sequential events or processes. These processes are also related in time and space, as this work hopes to show. I was a scientist long before I formally became a Christian. While I was not reared in a Christian home, I always had a sense of the existence of God. Eventually, through a series of events and experiences, I came to understand and accept the foundational beliefs of Christianity in my early 30’s; I am now 62 and still a Baptist. There was no conflict for me then anymore than there is now between science and faith, especially regarding creation. Both are correct. You can see this, I believe, if you have all the pertinent facts in focus and set aside preconceived notions. I provide this brief biography to only demonstrate that I have legitimate credentials in both areas. Additionally, I have pondered and studied this topic off-and-on for a number of decades. These shared perspectives I provide are not the result of some brief and shallow examination of science, theology, or philosophy.

This brief book shows why and how I believe and understand what I do on this subject without compromise or contrivance. This conflict is not unlike the blood feud between the Capulets and Montagues that attempted to keep Romeo and Juliet apart because of foolish pride and willful ignorance. Processes and Perspectives will demonstrate that you do not have to choose sides, but that there is a rational and coherent alternative allowing these two perspectives to unite, if you so choose. The future of these star-crossed perspectives is in our hands.

There is an old saying that The first casualty in war is the truth. That is precisely what has happened in this war of words, ideas, and speculative opinions. It is a greater tragedy considering that both groups pursue truth. Science pursues the physical truth of existence, while theology pursues the metaphysical truth of our existence. They are not mutually exclusive. Contrary to some anthropologists, science is about truth and not just about diminishing ignorance. Their concept implies that truth is irrelevant, relative, or non-existent. Science deals with physical facts and their workings. Facts are truths and, if allowed, do speak for themselves. The more facts you have on a subject, the more apparent the truth should be. Similarly, Biblical scripture deals with spiritual truths that are much more abstract and difficult to perceive, even for the faithful and especially for non-believers.

There is enough ignorance in the world wrapped in the façade of truth. Ignorance, like a virus, too often infects a truth to the point that the host—truth—becomes a philosophical and ideological Typhoid Mary or Harry, infecting many it comes in contact with. The vaccine is in choosing the pursuit of objective knowledge and its wise application, as opposed to trying to prove preconceived notions and furthering personal selfish agendas.

I endeavor to show that the truth of one is a facet of the other. Or, depending upon one’s perspective, immutable truth can be perceived from various views, like the facets of a fine diamond. The diamond of truth is still a diamond no matter what facet one views. At the micro level, the same diamond is not simply an aggregate of carbon molecules. Arrangement of the carbon molecules tells us if we are looking at a lump of coal or the fine diamond of truth. To see the big picture, we have to zoom-out our thinking regardless of our backgrounds or preferences if we wish to improve our perspective, especially on this topic. There are too many who cannot see the diamond for all the carbon.

What this presentation is not about is blatant sarcasm or rampant criticism. In the main text, I offer suggestions and perspectives of a scientific and theological nature that will challenge and annoy some on each side no doubt. In the Issues chapter, I discuss and make definitive comments on what I believe are specific faults and failures of both sides, relative to this conflict.

For the Christian community, this is emphatically not liberal theology nor is it some form of theistic creationism/evolution, pagan worldview, neo-evangelism or any other misguided label. For the science community, neither is this presentation some form of enlightenment philosophy, pseudo-science or creationism. It is quite the opposite of all of these, as the text and extensive literature cited should demonstrate. Some may conclude that this is simply a case for evolution on one had and intelligent design on the other. It is not. This is a case for the intelligent application of scientific and scriptural knowledge, demonstrating that Genesis and science have more in common than certain members of either side likes to admit.

This is a bridge, not a wedge. You cross this bridge of your own freewill. You can choose to go from one perspective to the other on this bridge, hopefully realizing there is no need to burn it behind you if you cross. Or, you can nuke it before you cross, never understanding and appreciating what you cutoff. I hope that you will freely cross back and forth (without commitment), experiencing what both sides have to offer, especially enjoying the perspective between the two. It’s a grand view.

These are my views and some of the reasons for them that I have chosen to share specifically dealing with the science and creation argument. This is a personal expository in an attempt to demonstrate that there can be compatibility between the Jewish/Christian creation story and modern science. One begins where the other leaves off. I hope that this will show, in some measure, that when objective science meets objective Christianity (or vice versa), there can be common, non-combative, non-compromising ground, for they are all facets of the same truth; the nature of existence.

As with all pursuits in general, and of knowledge and truth in particular, it is a matter of one’s personal choice as to what lengths one continues to pursue them. Unfortunately, this particular pursuit requires endurance and patience on both sides, including a large dose of mutual respect.

This is a complex subject. By themselves, science and theology are complex when examined beyond the superficial and presumed. Consequently, in meshing these two together, this treatment must have some degree of complexity to it, appropriately reflecting both sides. For some scientists, there will be too much theology, while for some Christians there will be too much science. What will be tangents to some will hopefully be enlightenments for others. Consequently, each needs to remember the nature of the issue at hand. You cannot discuss one without the other in some detail on this tangled subject if you want to understand the whys and wherefores of each, and, therefore, this subject.

This is not about one side dominating the other or one side being more correct than the other. It is about proper context and reasonable perspectives to more accurately appreciate the truth of each and their relationship to each other.

The problem today is not too much information, as some may complain. It is how to handle that information that either clarifies or muddies. That is, being able to separate the wheat from the chaff, but then that has always been a problem for every generation throughout history. This topic, likewise, has its wheat and chaff. I have tried to minimize the tedium and boredom, but even that is relative. Some might find this whole work amusing, while others might be bored to a coma-like state. However, the search for truth always requires personal effort, especially with such a controversial and visceral subject.

I hope you will give this presentation a chance and reflect on its purpose. This is not a deliberate challenge to the scientific community, nor is it a deliberate challenge to the Christian community in the sense of trying to be combative or self-righteous. The intention of this work is to be a bridge across the widening chasm that exists between these two related fields of inquiry. This is a bridge between each group’s commonality and their respective search for truth.

D. George Harrison

Bel Air, Maryland

2011 A.D. (or if you prefer, C.E.)

Introduction

The terms beginning and creation normally imply a method or some part of a process. That is, a process has to have a beginning as in a birth or the initial stage of an action. The term creation connotes a process of making and/or shaping; i.e., founding or establishing from existing material. These actions are not synonymous with appeared or emerged, for these usually connote an instantaneous or processless appearance as in a magical or mythological sense. If there is no other recurring theme in the universe or in scripture, it is that everything is part of some ongoing process. There are no exceptions. Within this universe, these processes form a cosmic nexus with all parts cut from the same fabric of creation, as we will soon see.

Life is a process: conception, birth, living, death, and again ad infinitum. The weather is a process. The eroding of granite by water is a long patient process, virtually unnoticed, as is the creation of mountains and fossils. The universe is still birthing stars, which live out their lives and which, in turn, give rise to new solar systems and interstellar ingredients, just as life continues to be renewed on this planet and probably elsewhere. For the theological, even our salvation is a continuous process of refinement for as long as we live, just as science is a constant process of refinement of its knowledge and understanding of the physical universe.

Perspectives

When western civilization emerged from the Dark Ages, entering the Renaissance and the Age of Enlightenment, people began to seek more refined or scientific answers to questions about how nature worked. Just as children grow up wanting better explanations of what affects or interests them, so too with the end of the human Dark Age, people were no longer willing to accept just theological or mythological explanations that did not address the substantive hows and whys of the world’s physical processes and existence. This is not heresy. This is part of a sentient being’s maturation process as it grows culturally and intellectually, again as a child does. This new era of inquiry brought about many good scholars and naturalists. However, it also demonstrates what happens when we get a little (or a lot) full of ourselves with the new knowledge and awareness we possess and do not check out all the facts or presume too much.

For example, Sebastian Munster was a famous cartographer of the sixteenth century. He published many good maps, with regional descriptions of natural history. In one edition he stated, We find trees in Scotland which produce a fruit enveloped in leaves, and when it drops into the water at a suitable time, it takes life and is turned into a live bird, which they call a tree-bird. My personal favorite is another sixteenth-century scholar, Ulisse Aldrovandus, the most learned ornithologist of the Renaissance. He maintained that his sea-ducks were the product of certain trees and the fruit they bore. His twist was that this fowl-fruit also allegedly dropped into the coastal waters and the sea-ducks then sprang from what we know today as gooseneck barnacles (Pouchet, 1873). Too many assumptions will lead to too little knowledge, regardless of the subject.

So it is with fledgling knowledge of any subject, especially if the subject is complex and has certain intangibilities. Not so many generations ago, the belief was that humans were pre-formed. That is, the human sperm contained a miniature adult. The woman’s egg was presumably just fertile ground for this Lilliputian life form. In 1759, Caspar Friedrich Wolff disproved preformation. He was a twenty-six year old naturalist who published his Theoria generationis, in which he refuted the theory of preformation. Caspar demonstrated that there was no preformed organism in either plant seed or chicken embryo (Betterx, 1965). I have no doubt that even after the book’s publication and subsequent dispersal of this factual knowledge, it was not universally accepted until many years later. I should note that religion and western civilization survived this discovery and publication.

Leeuwenhoek’s (1674) and Hooke’s (1665) discoveries, with their newly fashioned microscopes, also did not undermine any religion, except the religion of pride and preconception. These religious orders are universally endemic. From a Christian perspective, factual scientific knowledge should aid in appreciating the creative genius and complexity of God. From a scientific perspective, proper theological insights can add depth and meaning to our existence and perhaps point the way to God for an individual.

As we all know, preconceived notions die hard. We all have them. For some reason, less than the truth is easily accepted and readily defended, while absolute truth must constantly prove itself, be it scientific or theological. This may be because many universal truths require such large amounts of circumstantial proof before universal skeptics begin to consider them.

Preconceived notions can bias our perception and interpretation of even the obvious. For example, in 1694, even after Leeuwenhoek and Hook’s observations with rudimentary microscopes, Nikolaus Harsoeker assumed that preformation was valid based on what he thought he saw under his primitive microscope (Betterx, 1965). In other words, unlike Caspar Wolff 65 years later, Nikolaus tried too hard to prove the non-scientific theory of preformation, consciously or unconsciously, which had no basis other than a preconceived popular opinion. He saw what he chose to see and not what was actually in front of him. He filled in any gaps of knowledge or understanding with his own bias. I suspect there may have been an influential element of political correctness, even in his time.

The scientific process, in theory, involves an objective examination of what is before us. Any gaps of knowledge science leave as gaps or makes reasonable extrapolations of logic, based on existing evidence where appropriate. Unfortunately, even scientists are not immune to making inappropriate or unsubstantiated assumptions, but then neither are theologians or the rest of us. I guess we are all mere mortals after all, possessed of the same fundamental flaws.

Processes

Throughout the Bible, there are numerous examples of God using processes to accomplish His purposes. For example, Psalm 139:13-15 states, You knit me together in my mother’s womb. For I am fearfully and wonderfully made… and …when I was made in secret… Job 10:11 similarly states this concept. We know that the creation (knitting) of a child is a process, a very complicated process about which we are still learning. As we will see, astronomers have learned stars are born of a process. Stars, in turn, live out their lives according to inherent stellar processes, contributing to the cosmic community’s confectionary cupboard. Additionally, in Isaiah 66:8, The LORD says, Can a country be born in a day or a nation be brought forth in a moment? All things in the known universe experience a process. It is the nature of matter and the way of God, all for our observation and subsequent instruction, if we so choose.

Genesis Dawn

Since this particular conflict began over the Genesis account, it is there that we must begin. If we are to appreciate the original Genesis perspective, then we must remember that over 2,500 years ago people’s knowledge of the known world and how it worked, was extremely limited and simple. There were no laboratories, no fields of science, etc. In fact, explanations about the physical world’s workings were rooted in religion, myth, allegory, and limited observation. On this point, understand that the further from the source of an original statement, especially of a truth or knowledge of a subject in time and space, the greater the distortion of that original statement and, consequently, the beginnings of myths and other beliefs. This may apply to other religious accounts of Genesis in general and creation specifically. That is, I suspect Genesis’ creation account is the original, straight forward ancient account with all others being highly modified or enhanced derivatives. I will give more insight on why I believe this in various parts of this book.

The concept of science in antiquity was the domain of philosophers, magicians, medicine men, shamans, priests or just one’s imagination. The opening line in Genesis is a statement that God created all. What follows in Genesis is the sequence of creation with only antiquity’s temporal frame-of-reference and antiquity’s intellectual frame-of-reference to describe complex natural-events. This is one of the most pivotal points in the science vs. Biblical creation discussion. In their proper context, scripture is not science and science is not theology.

A process always connotes a sequence. Indeed, the creation story is about a sequence of innumerable processes succinctly stated in non-specific terms of the times. The emphasis was not on how, but on who and why, areas outside the domain of scientific study and rightfully so. As in antiquity, we still simplify complicated descriptions of processes with comparatively simple explanations or examples in order to drive home a particular point. Consequently, in trying to make or validate that point, you risk leaving out or losing important details. The natural tendency then becomes to fill in perceived gaps with presumptions by those who do not know the all the factual details or do not understand the basics of the subject.

The creation of all matter and energy in the universe happened only once (creation). What followed, and still occurs, are the resulting processes (continuances) associated with that creation. Therefore, creation is not to be confused with continuance or vice versa. Additionally, this perspective of processes is not a validation of the clockmaker concept, where God creates and then simply steps back and indifferently watches His creation tick-on. Neither do I believe He is watching some preprogrammed scenario play out according to the perceived laws of chance and blind ontogeny (development). I believe God is very active in His creation as a gardener is in his planned and planted garden. The reasons for this perspective will be forthcoming in this presentation as well.

Natural Selection

As natural selection works in the biological realm, so God uses artificial selection to invoke His will, coupled with our freewill. On that point, here is the description of natural selection and what it actually means:

a. Many more individuals are born in each generation than will survive and reproduce.

b. There is variation among individuals; they are not identical in all their characteristics.

c. Individuals with certain characteristics have a better chance of surviving and reproducing than individuals with other characteristics.

d. At least some of the characteristics resulting in differential reproduction [i.e., natural selection (Mayr, 1962)] are heritable.

e. Enormous spans of time are available for slow, gradual change. (Campbell, 1996)

In general, it suggests that the origin and diversification of species results from the accumulation of individual modifications within their genetic framework. It does not say or imply that everything evolves upwardly toward some state of functional perfection as some pulpit-pundits preach. Evolution is about one thing: change. Sometimes it is progressive (the universe) and sometimes it results in dead ends and extinction (sort of like politics and politicians). Aspects of natural selection have been proven in the laboratory and in the field, as we will eventually see. In artificial selection, there can be alteration of anyone of these natural selection dictums, as horticulturists and those in animal husbandry know, and especially if you are an omnipotent and omniscient Creator. Scripture clearly demonstrates this perspective in both the Old Testament and the New Testament when it shows God’s interaction with His creation.

Curiously, even Charles Darwin professed belief in the existence of a God in his 1887 autobiography, even though he was not a Christian. He stated, But I may say that the impossibility of conceiving that this grand and wondrous universe, with our conscious selves, arose through chance, seems to me the chief argument for the existence of God… Additionally, in 1879, a family member, on behalf of an ailing Darwin, responded to a German student’s inquiry regarding Darwin’s theology. In part, the response was, He considers that the theory of Evolution is quite compatible with the belief in a God (Darwin, 1893).

Ironically, Darwin could be labeled a supporter of intelligent design because of this view in today’s turmoil on this subject. However, it is unfortunate to me that Darwin’s perspective on God was essentially that of God as a clockmaker. As the authors of the book Darwin stated, Darwin’s view was that God had appointed natural laws to evolve life rather than intervene himself (Desmond & Moore, 1994). It is interesting that on one hand Darwin could allow science to validate the existence of God, while on the other hand use science to dispel the Creator’s willing interaction with His