At this stage in my life, I rarely tackle the larger issues of existence unless they throw a kink in the conduct of my everyday life. Unlike college days when I would gladly ponder and even debate subjects like “how many angels can fit on the end of a pin,” today I see such mental exercises as a wasteful use of the few brain cells I have left. And, unless those angels are complicating the process of me sewing up a rip in my pants, who cares how many there are, anyway?So just when my brain was trying not to over-exert itself, my daughter called and asked whether I believed in the “Big Bang” Theory, or the Bible’s version of creation. Of course, she was writing a paper for her Astronomy class and wanted to sample the opinions of her family and friends regarding the controversial issue.
Immediately I found my self in an awkward position. As a person of reasonable intellect, I didn’t want to sound like the stock soundtrack from the archives of an evangelical minister, nor did I want my elderly mother (in the next room) to overhear a secular opinion that might cause her to banish me from the will for becoming a religious heretic. So what’s a guy to say… especially when all he really wanted to do was get through the day with as little heavy-duty thinking as possible?
Anyway, because I was paying twenty-five cents a cell phone minute, I gave my daughter what was probably the quickest and least helpful answer (to her) that came to mind. I said that since both views of creation could not be conclusively proven, I thought both science and religion were kind of sharing the same theoretical boat. The minute we hung up, however, I realized I probably should have reviewed the elements of both theories at least once before offering an opinion. Of course, vagueness of subject matter has never stopped me from giving her my two cents worth in the past…!
So review I did… though a bit late. In abbreviated and unscientific language, then, the “Big Bang” Theory proffered that around fourteen billion years ago all energy was contained at one point in the vacuum of space. For some reason an “explosion” occurred which created a plasma soup in which particles were projected away from each other to form the foundation of our known Universe. As these particles began to cool off, ones favorable to the development of life as we know it (protons, neutrons, etc.) became the predominate state of matter, and over time combined with other stuff to became the astronomical bodies we know and study today.
Bible “Creation Theory” related a six day project by God, in which He supernaturally created everything that presently exists from the emptiness we now call our Universe. From Day One when he created the Heavens, the Earth, and light for the Earth, through Day Six when he finally created Man and his animal companions, everything was a result of His specific purpose and design. And, when He deemed the work finished and satisfactory, He used the seventh day wisely by taking a well-deserved rest.
Now, despite these unscholarly descriptions, to me both theories seem to describe the exact same creation scenario. Neither seems exclusive, that is, if one’s Bible view of creation stems from the “Old Earth” point of view which allows for the possibility that God’s “day” is not the twenty-four hour construct within which we operate today. Given that description of what a day means, it is easy to believe that God’s creation activities began with a “Big Bang” explosion that He made happen, by simply allowing His established “Laws of Nature” to do their thing down to the smallest molecular speck. In essence, it was His way of creating the “neighborhood” in which His subsequent human creations would someday live.
Obviously, many volumes have been written on the subject so I’m not going to try to sound scholarly here. I mean, after my two summaries, above, who in the world would take me seriously, anyway? So let’s just say I believe that each of the next creation “days” the Bible describes, is more easily reconciled with scientific theory, as well, when viewed from the “Old Earth” point of view. To buy that, however, a religious person must view God as more the patient, “Cosmic Engineer,” than the flashy “Heavenly Magician.” He must accept the possibility that God separated the land from the waters using natural tectonic forces during His second “day,” rather than just waving His hands and making it happen instantaneously. Likewise, he must allow for the possibility that God created the seeds that when scattered across our Earth, grew into mature plants and trees over time, ready to serve their designated purpose by the end of the third creation “day.”
Personally, I find this non-literal interpretation of God’s “day” not only plausible, but a truly practical way for Him to pull off an inspired and extremely complicated creation plan using His own timetable. And, though described to Moses in only skeletal form for the book of Genesis, He ultimately created everything scientifically necessary to both initiate and fulfill the plan to establish a suitable world for the Man He would create “in His image,” on the day before He rested.
Looking back, perhaps the most important thing I should have shared with my daughter that day, is an opinion sure to alienate both the scientific and the religious community equally. Everything considered, except for the purpose of earning a decent grade in Astronomy class, KNOWING CONCLUSIVELY HOW THE WORLD WAS CREATED IS OF ABSOLUTELY NO PRACTICAL BENEFIT OR IMPORTANCE. No matter the theory, the theology, or the compatibility between them (or not), what really counts is how we conduct ourselves during our brief stay here on Earth, and whether when we depart, those left behind are better off for having known us.
Beyond that, if one’s literal belief in God makes him shun the body of knowledge accumulated by Science, he is surely blind to the full beauty and magnificence of what his God has created. And, if a reliance on Science and it’s theories has made that same man reject and turn his back on God, this body of worldly knowledge has rendered him not only spiritually blind, but eternally unfulfilled, as well.
