Science says the Universe began with a Big Bang over 13 billion years ago.
Creationists say the Universe began with a movement of God’s Spirit some 6000 years ago.
Few would say there is ANY similarity in those views.
The Problem with the current scientific understanding of what has happened immediately since the moment of the Big Bang is that, before it, there was actually NO time. No Space. No ‘Anything’ or as Genesis puts it – The ‘Void’ before it actually occurred. An infinite nothingness of notime and nospace
Science can only ‘deal’ with evidence that exists in the form of matter, energy and a time function that is able to be measured. For anything ‘other’ than these science is incapable of dealing with – whereas Religion is not. (and neither is ‘God’)
God is largely to do with the concept of ‘spirit’. Spirit is an ‘opposite’ to matter and is not exactly a form of energy (which can be converted into matter and vice versa) as we know it.
In Genesis the only thing that exists ‘in the beginning’ is the Void (Darkness – absence of light) also known as the Deep or ‘the Waters’ (a fluid-like ‘circumstance’ of chaotic non-existence as we in our material Universe might understand it) AND God’s Spirit.
Since Science cannot detect or prove (or disprove) the existence of God’s Spirit it just ignores it and says that ‘in the beginning’ there was only ‘nothing’ (that we can currently identify, not even time or space).
I had a think on the subject last night in bed and came up with a simplified ‘explanation’ of the difference between Scientific Atheism and Biblical Creationism in terms of the uniting ‘overall view’ of what is going on.
The ‘simplified’ version is this.
Imagine an Aussie coin. ( the coins in your location are unlikely to be significantly different) Hold it up so it can be observed. The ‘Headers’ say that according to their observations the coin is round and made of metal and is made with an image of a Female head and some writing that describes it’s country of origin, the head and it’s time of creation – clearly there is no animalistic feature and nothing to say it has any different intrinsic value to any other type of coin.
The ‘Tailers’ say that according to THEIR observations the coin is round and made of metal and is made with the image of an animal and has some writing that determines the numerical value of the unit of currency it represents – clearly there is no humanity about this coin and nothing to say when it was first created.
What is happening here is two separate groups are making separate observations of the ‘same’ thing from a distance and each group’s perspective is exactly 180 degrees apart – polar opposites to the other group’s observations.
Headers have ‘evidence’ of the time of creation of the coin while Tailers understand that the coin has a value dependent upon its size and it’s numeric imprint – neither group is able to see the truth of the other side’s evidence – yet both are correct while they disagree strongly with each other on what they are looking at. (Although there ARE a number of similarities in their observations)
This is a very simplified version of what has happened with Evolution/Creationism.
Both are looking at the same thing from very remote and opposite viewpoints. Both are quite correct in terms of their observations. Both share a number of similar observations but with their own ‘understandings’ as a result.
Creationists are looking back to a point some 6000 years before they exist and from the viewpoint of ‘evidence’ (the Bible) that is some 2500+years older than they are. Naturally their thoughts are going to be different to those of Scientists using tools (scientific ‘method’) that have only been developed over 500 or less years looking at ‘evidence’ (some of which is experimental, but most observed and estimations drawn from conclusions of what is observed) of an event that is thought to have taken place some 13.4 billion years ago.
Given these vastly differing understandings i find it quite amazing that there is so little basic difference between the two views of how the Universe actually began.
BLob's Blog 
Man you went deep on this one.
I have often struggled with the whole concept of “instant” creation and the idea that there was NO space or time before the big bang. If nothing then how was something created?
I also have a hard time with infinity. The idea that the universe is endless although I am not sure what is on the other side of this.
It is really hard to wrap your mind around..
I am getting a head ache now.
LikeLike
Very interesting observation. You must have some fascinating conversations with yourself at night. 🙂
I agree that science and religion are looking at the same event from different perspectives.
As you say the God of religion can’t be measured by any technology, that currently exist. This why the question “does God exist?” is not a scientific one. To apply a question to the scientific process you must be able to measure it’s components.
The evidence that supports a religious belief is based on a believer feeling God’s presences in some manner. Everything written in the Bible is viewed as fact, although open to different interpretations, because it was recorded by men following God’s guidance.
The process of science is completely different from the basis with which Christian Creationist use to form their beliefs. It isn’t surprising that come up with different answers.
If you have faith in the scientific process you believe the most accurate date of the Universe, so far, is 13.4 billion years.
The Young Earth Christian Creationist have faith that the Book of Genesis as fact and the Universes is less than 10,000 years old, the same date as the age of the earth.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creationism
Theoretical physicist use mathematics to base their theories on. Way beyond anything I can understand. Some propose our Universe is just one of many. This idea does not seem to me, as well as I can understand it, to dispute the existence of God.
Wikipedia:
“The bubble universe model proposes that different regions of this inflationary universe (termed a multiverse) decayed to a true vacuum state at different times, with decaying regions corresponding to “sub”- universes not in causal contact with each other and resulting in different physical laws in different regions which are then subject to “selection” which determine each region’s components based upon (dependent on) the survivability of the quantum components within that region. The end result will be a finite number of universes with physical laws consistent within each region of spacetime. “WE” are just fortunate enough to exist in a privilaged component wherein those physical laws — generally — are compatible with the evolution of life.”
LikeLike
Joseph – you are in great company struggling with the concepts of something from nothing and infinity i assure you.
No-ne has yet conclusively dealt with those topics (possibly excepting God here) 😉
i do like considering things at this unimaginably vast level however and have since before i was 10.
All i will say for now is that man’s mind has a VERY long way to go before it is able to provide any other ‘sufficient’ explanation to those things that make any more sense than ‘God’.
And if you believe in God it is necessary to ask – where did God come from? To many the answer of ‘He always existed and always will’ is unsatisfactory. Not necessarily impossible – but unsatisfactory none-the-less.
If you have a God that is infinitely old and will live forever then what in His Name is the point of making a Creation that lives for a finite period ( efectively an eye-blink to God) and is then destroyed?? God gains nothing and loses nothing from it since He is infinite in all respects.
Effectively, everything that happens in this eye-blink is pointless (to Him).
Or maybe just beyond any current human comprehension – rather like what caused the Big Bang. and made ‘something’ from ‘nothing’.
Has God done the reverse and made ‘nothing/something’ from Something/Everthing??
LikeLike
Ed – you are right – i have some amazing conversations with myself 😉
Glad to see you dipping your toes into both ‘camps’ here 😉
i don’t know that my understanding of the scientific process amounts to ‘faith’ – although i do se that for most people it does mean that some things science tells us are more taken upon faith than upon our own true understanding. Then i believe it becomes very hard to actually distinguish it from religion!
Especially when science is forced to come face to face with the things it is currently unable to provide any better answer for than ‘i don’t know’…. but perhaps maybe this…?
i do understand the scientific process, rational thought and reasoning and logic better than the majority of my peers though i believe – and yet still find it not unreasonable to believe in something that could be best termed ‘God’.
And Believe that the Bible can be taken at something extremely close to ‘face value’.
i will say though that i hold the opinion that ‘literal’ Creationists are very poorly using the talents for logic and reason God gave to them by taking some things such as the ‘constancy’ of God and human understanding of some terms to extreme lilits – and beyond.
I hope however never to be entirely closed minded on most and perhaps all things.
Something i think you are not far from being close to yourself? 😉
LikeLike
Love, I really like the example you used of looking at two different sides of the same coin. I’m really no good at science, and trying to think of explanations to convince people that God created the world makes my brain hurt.
But just on a personal level I had a boyfriend who was a christian but believed God used evolution to create the world. He was really proud of the fact the he descended from a monkey and joked about it all the time. Obviously we never agreed. But just: what about the sanctity of human life- humans being the only creatures with spirits, how can anyone be proud of having descended from a monkey… and what about being created in the image of God?
LikeLike
Rain – trying to convince people who are looking from one side of the coin that they are ‘wrong’ without being able to show them what you see (and accept what they see is ‘real’ also) is going to make anyone’s brain hurt – and sometimes lead to war and violence between them also 😉
i do not feel able to provide ALL the ‘answers’ to the questions you are asking ( although i hope to help all see things from the other’s point of view so as to bring more respect to both sides, bringing them closer together eventually) but i would ask that you consider this ‘side of the coin’ 😉
When an Artist creates a creation ( putting a little of their heart and soul into it) the finished product is not generated instantly – it takes time.
First the base material is gathered together (after a ‘plan’ has been formed in their mind). Then the first crude steps are taken to alter this material – shaping it roughly. ( a rough sketch). Then work is done to it slowly making something resembling the finished product appear – and then the finishing touches are added to make it ‘perfect’.
If an Artist does all that ( ‘evolving’ the final product) and we are in the image of God – then why would God not do something ‘similar’ for His Creation?
Would Mona Lisa feel in any way disgusted that she was once a crude pencil outline sketch that has since been ‘modified’ and perfected?
Is a monkey today not truly a work of His Fine Art of Creation? Should we then feel any upset that we are as we now are today whereas once we might have been something also magnificent because of Who created and evolved it but ‘lesser’ than human?
Evolution as described by Darwin is simply the improvement over time of what God Started and is still in the process of completing. At the varous times throughout the History of the world (some call them ‘days’) that which then existed was the current stage God had progressed to and was ‘perfect’ for that moment – even if His Plan was not yet fully finished.
Does that seem plausible?
Are any of us today yet ‘finished works’?
LikeLike
You use quotations a lot. Did you know that?
I didn’t actually read all of this. It’s late and I’m rather tired, and so I think I must sincerely apologize to leave such a lame comment on your blog.
Appreciate you, Blove.
LikeLike
Love, I still think I would rather have preferred to be a rough sketch than a monkey:) I just think that if God meant to say: “And then God created the world, and He created the special monkeys which later became human beings in His own image…’ He would have said so:) I can believe that the different species of animals have evolved throughout the years and adapted to their circumstances, that seems only logical, and man was once more of a caveman and became more civilised (although that is debatable) over time. But I always come back to what the Bible the says. “And God created man, in His own image. In the image of God He created them, male and female.”
LikeLike
Rain – i don’t think the Bible’s job is to be a full historical or biological book of man’s history and life on this planet, but has a particular story to tell and a connection to God to establish with everyone who reads it. Therefore it cannot be expected to go into much detail about how God created every living thing as well as the planets and stars and galaxies.
I think it is important to understand that the Bible does not say anything that contradicts the ‘long form’ of creation as opposed to the common interpretation that things were just made instantly as they are. (or the seven ‘days’ theory).
Consider yourself as one example.
You are, besides being a child of and a Creation of God, a unique product of your mother and father.
You are ‘made’ in their image having elements of both of them combined into the person you are, physically as well as imtellectually/emotionally.
Yet you were not created ‘fully formed’ and perfect as the being you are today. – at one point you were simply two cells that had fused together, one from Mum and One from Dad.
You went through a number of different ‘forms’ ( one of which meant you looked remarkably like a lizard or a fish) to finally become the incredibly complex human organism you are.
Why should we believe that God works in any significantly different way or that he takes ‘shortcuts’ in time to finalise His most magnificent work in us?
The Bible has the raw fact – we were made in His Image – that it does not clearly specify how He did this does nothing to take away what He did in doing so – to my mind.
<B
LikeLike
Reblogged this on Lovewillbringustogether’s Weblog and commented:
I wrote this almost 8 years ago and kind of forgot about it. lately i’ve been considering things anew and have had largely the same thoughts. It should not really be much of a surprise, but somehow it is?
Anyway if you have any comment i’d love to hear it.
love
LikeLike
I am afraid people striving to understand the beginning (and the end) of the world/time/life do actually want to surpass their own mental capabilities. Our sense-organs are adjusted to our surroundings. I am sure that we still have to explore a lot more abour our organisms and we are going to do so in the future. However, we can not really understand phenomenons that we can not experiment. We have come up with newer and newer concepts about universe, but none of them can be tested or double-checked. All these theories are actually understood by only a few and they can rely only to their theories. We have machines and formulas but is there anybody who can really imagine infinite space?
LikeLiked by 1 person
I know and agree with what you are saying here but, as with anything, there is always more than just one ( correct) way of looking at things. 🙂
If we understand that our own birth has things in common with the birth of life and with the birth of the Universe then we can in some ways understand how things began and similarly how things might end.
Everything has come from just one thing (and may ultimately return to just one thing in a wheel or circle of life) and all evolves out of one, then keeps on dividing and evolving. By seeing the underlying principles involved we can learn a lot about how everything is connected to everything else and if we are smart we can apply that to all humans as well. 🙂
We are all the same and we are all unique – that duality is a fundamental aspect of reality and if we study and understand it it can unite us in ways we don’t currently appreciate as a species.
love.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Actually for our own birth two parents were needed, but we can not really track back the very first two parents. Human mind wants things to begin somewhere. I think that our faith helps us to fill up the shortcomings of our mind.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Human life does indeed require two individuals (each a one) to be initiated anew but depending upon your bias, First came the egg and then a sperm was incorporated into it or, first came a sperm which then infested an egg (both singular items) and the two fused into a new single being. One always comes before 2 in mathematics; before you can have 2 you have to have 1. If you start from nothing creating a ‘one’ also creates it’s opposite – the 2 balance each other out (can sometimes cancel each other out) resulting in a nett balance (one is imbalanced – is an odd number, not even).
As for Faith, Faith is what we rely upon to fill the gaps between our understanding of the Truth. If a human could understand/determine what the Truth is in it’s entirety, s/he would have no need of Faith. S/He would be as one with God. 🙂
love
LikeLiked by 1 person
When contemplating these issues I am always disappointed with my limited capabilities.
Best regards Linda
LikeLike
We ALL are limited in terms of realised capabilites and while it can be seen as a personal disappointment we could choose to see it as motivation to realise more and more capabilities! 🙂 We need to remember though that learning all there is to know (on even just one topic) is likely an impossible task for any one of us – maybe that’s why there are so many of us?? 😉
Nice to meet you Linda
love (or Bob as i’m known off-line) 🙂
LikeLike