Recently I published a second edition of my book
'Creation and Cosmos - The Literal Values of Genesis. Then I found an
interesting book, new to me, named 'The Genesis Enigma; Why the Bible is
Scientifically Accurate' by Andrew Parker that prompted me to think that one
day if enough new ideas occur I may write a third edition.
Parker is not simply a man of faith,
he is also a biologist who developed an interesting theory named 'The Light
Switch Hypothesis'. The reviewer of Parker's book 'In the Blink of an Eye' was
quite critical of the idea that the ability for evolving life on Earth to see
stimulated the Cambrian explosion of life that is Parker's main premise. For a
biologist to develop a new theory is not too common-they tend to be a
conservative group except for rare wild Christians like Charles Darwin. Parker
believes as well that God evolved the world-theistic evolution, and that the
book of Genesis is code for that evolution.
If the Cambrian explosion was actually
stimulated by the state of Eukaryotic life and the rise of the level of oxygen
in the atmosphere it is also probable that the appearance of vision conferred a
tremendous advantage in predation and energy intake onto the creatures in the
competition for survival. The development of vision centers in the brain of
animals, and in fact the development of brains was probably stimulated.
Parker's theory seems reasonable enough and it did afford him the
opportunity relating the Biblical paradigm of creation to that of evolution.
In my 2005 first edition of C & C
I used Peter's statement that a day to God is as a thousand years to man to
roughly calculate the appearance of life on Earth with those literal values
(literal such as are algebraic literals) and discovered that the eras of the
Bible are like those of evolution and of the order of appearance of life.
I have tried to consider as many
meanings and contexts for the book of Genesis as I could given the
circumstances of having more time to read than opportunity to write. Andrew's
critic stumbles for me on Biblical criticism and in understanding the context
in which the Bible was put together. Although my ideas differ a little from
Parker's in that regard too, it is interesting that Parker's appendix on who
wrote the Bible is comparable paradigmaticaly to Rosenberg and Bloom's
'The J Book' and 'Abraham; The First Biography'. Parker provides more
links to authors that considered the book of Genesis as a paradigm sketching
out evolution theory from the 19th century.
The topic of theistic evolution is a work
in progress and of course Christians will want to not only trust the Bible,
they may wish to read Paul Tillich to get a notion of how the Unconditional
relates to the conditional, to critical-scientific contexts and to mysticism,
theonomy and autonomy. The world is a lump of stellar ejecta in a space in the
middle of nowhere far from being a locale survivable for the species without
significant intellectual, spiritual and ecospheric development in competence.
It would be wrong to pout on the blinders of scientific critical analysis soley
as if in an existential environment pure chess gaming and bureaucracy for
themselves would adequately address the wild and unconditional reality in which
God is all-in-all.
It is useful to comprehend much and
act intelligently to conserve life.
No comments:
Post a Comment