Paul Davies, physicist, cosmologist and astrobiologist working at Arizona State University, stated the following during an interview with ABC (Australian Broadcasting Corp.) In Conversation with Paul Davies and Phillip Adams. Find this whole series here.
The article notes:
…the shallow time scale in the Bible, which on a literal interpretation is absurdly short. Personally I think that the hopelessly incorrect age of the universe here is less important than the key fact that in all three of these religions – Judaism, Islam and Christianity – the universe actually has an origin in time, and is not cyclic as in so many other ancient cosmologies.
And not only that. The monotheistic religions not only have the universe coming into being at some particular moment, they also make use of so-called linear time – a unidirectional sequence of events with a beginning, middle, and end…
The mechanism of the coming-into-being of the universe, as discussed in modern science, is actually much more profound than the biblical version because it does not merely involve order emerging out of chaos. It’s not just a matter of imposing some sort of organisation or structure upon a previous incoherent state, but literally the coming-into-being of all physical things from nothing.
It is interesting that Paul Davies states that, “a literal interpretation” concludes a “shallow time scale” which “is absurdly short” and that this is “hopelessly incorrect.” Interesting because of what Stephen Hawking and Leonard Mlodinow wrote in their book, The Grand Design, when referring to “Model-Dependent Realism.”
When it comes to “those who maintain that the account given in Genesis is literally true” and the view according to which “time continues back 13.7 billion years to the big bang.” They conclude that while, “the big bang theory—is more useful than the first. Still, neither model can be said to be more real than the other.”
As a side issue, the reason why they consider the big bang theory more useful is that they claim that a literal Genesis view is held, “even though the world contains fossil and other evidence that makes it look much older. (Were [sic] they put there to fool us?)” Thus, the big bang theory is preferable as it, “explains the most about our present observations, including the historical and geological evidence” and so it is, “the best representation we have of the past.”
This is simply a caricature of the Young Earth Creationist view which, while very appealing as a well-within-the-box-atheist-group-think-talking-point-de jour, is unbecoming of an scientist’s authorship.
They got one point quite right indeed which is the appearance, “that makes it look much older.” Yet, there is no reason to think that the appearance of great age was “put there” and certainly no “to fool us.” Both the Bible and the history of the earth present catastrophism and catastrophism makes things look old, very old, much older than they actually are.
Then again, catastrophism does not really make things look old rather, we make statements such as catastrophism makes things look old because we begin with an uniformitarian presupposition and once it is toppled by the evidence we act surprised and say that something looks old when, in reality, it looks just as it should having undergone a catastrophe.
As merely one example, consider the eruption of Mt. St. Helens which very, very, very quickly produced geologic formations such as fully stratified canyon. Also, fossilization is not about age but about circumstance.
It is a fact that the Bible predicts that the universe had a beginning, it predicts that time is linear, it predicts the first law of thermodynamics, it predicts that the universe expands, it predicts that the universe consists of time, space and matter, it predicts that the Earth is spherical, it predicts that the Earth hangs on nothing, etc., etc., etc.
It would appear that the, the account given in Genesis is literally true—is more useful than the second.
See:
The First Commandment of Thermodynamics
Jurassic Ark – Science
“Professing Themselves To Be Wise, They Became Fools”, part 5 of 5
It is rather odd that Paul Davies juxtaposes, via a false dichotomy: 1) “The mechanism of the coming-into-being of the universe, as discussed in modern science” with 2) “the biblical version.”
What is the falsely dichotomous juxtaposition? That 1) is “literally the coming-into-being of all physical things from nothing” whilst 2) is “merely…order emerging out of chaos….a matter of imposing some sort of organisation or structure upon a previous incoherent state.”
Is there a conflict here? Does “modern science” make one claim and the Bible another, on this point? “Modern science” concludes “literally the coming-into-being of all physical things from nothing.” But what saith the Bible (we know what Paul Davies says that the Bible says but what does the Bible itself say—ex Biblico)?
But first…
In the next segment we will take a side track into the claim that the Bible does not state that God created the universe out of nothing.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
A plea: I have to pay for server usage and have made all content on this website free and always will. I support my family on one income and do research, writing, videos, etc. as a hobby. If you can even spare $1.00 as a donation, please do so: it may not seem like much but if each person reading this would do so, even every now and then, it would add up and really, really help. Here is my donate/paypal page.
Due to robo-spaming, I had to close the comment sections. However, you can comment on my Facebook page and/or on my Google+ page. You can also use the “Share / Save” button below this post.