Re: Evolution: dead man walking

Ami Chopine (
Wed, 7 Apr 1999 13:52:13 -0700

----- Original Message -----
From: Cummins <>
To: Ami Chopine <>; <>
Sent: Tuesday, April 06, 1999 12:32 PM
Subject: RE: Evolution: dead man walking

> > []On Behalf Of Ami Chopine
> > If Genesis starts out creating the universe, then the reference you are
> > refering to is when the universe actually cooled down enough for light
> > exist. At that point, were photons seperated from the rest of
> > matter (which is dark).
> So, darkness = matter. But, Big Bang = light before darkness. Bible =
> darkness before light.
> Photons and electromagnetic radiation existed before any matter had yet
> formed, according to the Big Bang model.

I think you are mistaken on this. Let me make it more clear. I did not
mean that matter is darkness. Matter, unless it is radiating photons,
cannot be is in a state of darkness. But it is not darkness. I
meant to differentiate between the rest of matter, and photons.

Now, in the early universe, until things cooled down to about 3000K, light
(photons) was knocking electrons about, so that they could not stabilize
into orbits around atomic nuclei. So, the electrons and the nuclei and the
photons were all mixed up. If we could view things as they were at that
point, we would see nothing: a void. A very energetic void, but quite
invisible because light would not be visible.

Then, that critical threshold was reached and "God divided the light from
the darkness"

If you want to read an interesting book which postulates both a literal
interpretation, and an old universe, read "Genesis and the Big Bang: The
Discovery of Harmony Between Modern Science and the Bible." By Dr. Gerald

> > > You're trying to waterdown (make worthless) the text of the
> > Bible to the
> > > point that it no longer conflicts with secular myth.
> >
> > Why does acceptance of scientific data make the text of the Bible
> worthless?
> First, NO one has ever reached your interpretation by reading the Bible,

Actually, Dr. Schroeder uses commentary from Old Testament scholars from
before Galileo to show that people with an intimate understanding of these
passages in their native language described an early universe much like
science is discovering today through high energy and particle physics.

> rather they take their non-Biblical beliefs and "make worthless" the Bible
> as much as necessary until their beliefs are no longer in conflict with
> Bible. You're not finding meaning in the Bible, you're rejecting what it
> ostensibly says and imposing your non-Biblical beliefs on it.

You do not know me. You do not know what the Bible means to me. You are
ignoring the Bible yourself by making such assertions about my testimony of
the book. I see a way for the Bible to be historical, as well as wholly
compatible with an old universe. The belief in an old universe does not
equal a belief in naturalistic evolution.

> Secondly, the scientific data does not support the Big Bang. Just about
> everything about the Big Bang model is in contradiction with known
> scientific facts.

Explosions in an isolated system don't organize (2nd law
> thermo)

The Big Bang is no mere explosion. That is just an analogy used to make it
more comprehensible.

, gravity would have prevented expansion, etc.

Okay, gravity is actually a pretty weak force. The only reason it appears
so strong is because there is just so much of it. The force and energy of
the Big Bang were, are far more substantial than gravity. It does have an
affect on if the universe will continue to expand, or start collapsing back
down. It appears there is not enough mass for a "Big Crunch".

And the few pieces of
> circumstantial evidence that the Big Bang is based can be explained by
> means (e.g. background radiation is just diffused energy from stars).

We do look at diffused energy from stars all the time. That is how we see
them, by visible spectrum or radio telescopes. Subtracting this radiation
away, we get the background radiation of a steady 3.5 K above absolute zero.

> there's a mountain of circumstantial evidence which contradicts the Big
> (e.g. lack of anti-matter in the universe).

I don't know as there is a lack of anti-matter. It wouldn't be floating
around here, or we would be annihilated.
> > What would you say, if I propose that the very age of the
> > universe increases the scope of God's great Work?
> That's a mighty subjective line of argument.

An older universe is much larger (in time, if not space) and has much more
variety than a young universe. Thus, Creation would be greater.
> God did not create the appearance of age, your false assumptions is the
> source of what you would consider a false appearance of age.

List the scientific evidence for a young earth.

If you assume
> naturalistic precursors to what God did, then it's going to look older to
> you than it really is.

God created the universe, so how could there be naturalistic precursors to
what God did?

You need to recognize the difference between what is
> necessary for a fully functional universe (full grown trees in the garden
> Eden) vs. what appearance of age isn't necessary for a fully functional
> universe (tree rings in the trees in the garden of Eden).

Okay, what is necessary? The Earth. The Earth is a rocky planet, with a
lot of metals. Metals are heavy elements. Planets such as Earth would not
have formed in the early universe because there were no heavy elements. By
the time it was cool enough for the heavy elements to be stable it was not
dense enough for such nuclear reactions. So, what was needed were stars,
where nuclear fusion occurs, to produce those heavy elements. Those
elements are trapped within the star until it explodes. A supernova leaves
a nebula of dust and hydrogen out of which new second generation stars are
born. Planets can form from this dust, which contains heavier elements.
Star formation and the lifetime of stars is very well understood. And while
planet formation is not so well understood, we know what ingredients we
need. It takes at least the lifetime of a star to produce those
ingredients. The age of the universe is necessary.

Am I describing naturalistic processes? Yes. Do I believe these processes
exist without God? No. God created the laws and constants by which the
universe works.

> The creation account (through to the Flood) is not a small detail,
> especially considering that it is referred to numerous times throughout
> Bible. And, if we can't trust it in the measurable things, how can we
> it in the spiritual things?

The flood is real. I believe it happened. How would the age of the
universe or the creation of life on earth conflict with this?

The Bible recounted history only in relation to what spiritual impact it
has. Therefore, it is not necessary for it to be complete history. We know
of its spiritual value not by any material evidence, but by praying and
listening to the Holy Spirit.

> The best example if Punctuated Equilibrium.

Before you start tearing down PE, please read the FAQ on it at
At first, I was quite unimpressed myself. I was thinking...Okay, so how in
the world is there all of the sudden going to be enough mutations to have
new species appear suddenly? There aren't. Do new species appear when the
present species is successful? Probably not. Is there a lack of mutations
during the static period? No. They simply do not manifest, but are carried
down through the generations. Then, there is some enviromental stress...a
new competitor, or a change in climate. Suddenly, these mutations which may
occur individually from time to time become advantageous for some reason.
Several different unusual phenotypes, because of their advantage, become
normal. A threshold is reached and a new species is born. It is so fast,
that there is little in the geologic record. So, the change is gradual, but
in genotypes, not phenotypes.

We can test PE by knowing the gene map of a species and observing its drift,
and under either isolation or stress, its speciation. If we do not observe
the gradual genetic change (through mutations) which is subsequently focused
into physical change then PE will be invalidated.