Skip to main content

The Science of God

Not too long ago, two of my friends had posted their thoughts on evolution and creationism. Both friends shared similar sentiments on the topic (you can view Skylar's here and Keith's here). Coincidence or not, shortly before they made their postings, I purchased a book called The Science of God by Dr. Gerald Schroeder, which was based on the same topic. Unfortunately, at the time of my friend's postings, I had not finished the book, but now I have.

In The Science of God, Schroeder attempts to debunk the dichotomy that exists between science/evolution and creationism. He tries to show that there can exist a duality between the two and that discoveries in science actually prove the story of creation in the bible.

The book can be roughly divided into three categories that being the concepts of time, the second with the biology of evolution, and lastly the concept of free will.

In describing time, he focuses on the 6 days that are explained in the beginning of Genesis. During the inception of the earth, the physics of the world was in such a way that time was able to slow down. The days that are described in Genesis are equal to 24 hours as we understand it, but billions of years are represented within it. He clarifies the description by using simple quantum mechanics. Without getting into Einstein-isms, remember that example in high school physics, the one about twins, where one would stay on earth, and the other would fly in a rocket ship that moved at the speed of light? Say the rocket boy was only in space for an hour relative to himself, but on earth, many years would pass and his brother would be much older. The same can be applied to the days described in Genesis. Furthermore, because of those physics, time as we understand it works like a decaying exponential curve, where those first days represented millions and billions of years relative to how we understand time now, but as 'days' go by, the amount of time represented in a day tapered off (it hit its asymptote) and is calibrated to how we measure time today.

In a chapter about evolution, he describes how the order of creation as described in the bible, parallels the theories of science on the order of evolution. An interesting comparison he makes is between the human eyeball and the eyeball of an octopus. Here we have two creatures that are so different, yet all the components that make up their eyeball are essentially the same. He explains that the statistical probability of this occuring for two separate creatures are so low that it might as well be zero chance.

He gives us a treat at the end, concluding the book with a chapter on dinosaurs and their possible existence. But I shan't spoil that for you, my fellow geeks.

These are of course but a few of the things he talks about in his book. Schroeder himself is a physicist who gained his B.S., M.S., and Ph.D. from MIT. But for the past 25 years he has been studying the interpretation of the bible.

I think as an engineering graduate, I can appreciate some of his explanations. To explain some of his theories, he uses established mathematical formulas; some from thermodynamics (I was pleasantly surprised by my old friend, the Arrhenius equation) but mostly from statistics. One thing Schroeder does well is explaining their meanings and uses in laymans terms, so if you were not of a mathematical or scientific background, you could still understand what's going on.

Right now, I'm not sure if I'm convinced on these theories. I respect the perspective, find they are coherent, and they are certainly plausible, but I mean, as Christians, we believe in a God that someway somehow came down to earth, died, and came back to life... what? Death to life. If we are to believe this, then is it a stretch to believe that the description in Genesis is literal? I mean, He is a God of wonders and of miracles, so I can't doubt the possibility of His works.

Sometimes it seems as though we ask these questions and try to fill that void by applying what we know of earth through science, math, etc., in some way to satiate our own curiosity. But we should not forget what the Lord says in Isaiah 55:8-9:
"For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither your ways my ways," declares the Lord. "As the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways and my thoughts than your thoughts..."
I will end this post with a quote from Schroeder:
"Randomness just doesn't cut it when it comes to generating meaningful order out of chaos. Direction is required. Always."
Later geeks!

Comments

SkyCapitan said…
Thanks for the summary, bro. When you first linked to it, I read the synopsis and thought it looked interesting. Now I'm even more interested. I'll have to borrow it from you sometime.

I'm also not sure where I stand on it. You bring up a very good point - and one that I've struggled with a bit as well - when you say that it's not really a stretch to believe in literal creation when we believe that a man was god incarnate and was raised from the dead.
Kevin said…
Have you read "The Case for a Creator" by Lee Strobel?
(http://www.amazon.ca/Case-Creator-Journalist-Investigates-Scientific/dp/0310240506/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1223586648&sr=8-1)

It sounds remarkably similar in concept to this book, and I think you'd enjoy it. I"m going to be around your house on Saturday, and if you want to borrow my copy, message me (or reply here).
ballnvic said…
blogroll?
www.sportsatmosphere.com
Sounds pretty interesting. When speak of creationism comes up, I think of Sarah Palin and it gives me bad nightmares.
The Lam said…
@Skycapitan:
Hey bro, yah, next time I see you, I'll lend it to you. I think as a fellow engineer, you can definitely appreciate what it has to say, whether we choose to agree with it or not.

@Laundry:
I'm not the biggest fans of The Case For ______ books. I've read one, and skimmed a few others, but never intrigued me enough, so I kindly pass.

@Dwayne:
If Sarah Palin is the face of creationism, then we are in a world of trouble.
Anonymous said…
Great post!!

http://culturedecoded.wordpress.com/2008/10/10/barack-obama-and-the-party-that-cant-lose/

Popular posts from this blog

Mark Waid's IRREDEEMABLE (Issues #1-7)

(Note: be warned that this review is on the spoiler heavy side, so read at your own discretion if you don't want the story spoiled.) Since I was a teenager, I always had this dream that I would become a quirky movie director and I'd make a bunch of crappy little horror movies to start with, but that my first big movie would be this anti-superhero movie. I dreamed up of an Apocalypse Now -like movie using existing Marvel superheroes where Captain America would go mad, slaughtering the innocent and go into hiding somewhere 'up the river'. There would be a detective like character (possibly superhero) that would be after him, interviewing his former teammates to find out what made the all-American hero go mad. Imagine my surprise when I started reading Irredeemable . Although not exactly the story in my dreams, it's pretty close. I started reading the series this past weekend upon the glowing review that those geeks over at iFanboy put up a few weeks ago. As far a

DTV Madness: Jack Brooks - M.S. and Gingerdead Man 2

Okay, honestly, I think this will be the last DTV post for a while. One man can only take so much shit. I'm only human, I have feelings too. These two movies pushed my limit. I'm going to be in DTV-detox for the next month or so. Jack Brooks: Monster Slayer I thought that with a title like this, it couldn't fail. I thought that with a poster like they had, it couldn't fail. Then I realized something... I failed. I failed in thinking that this movie had any hope. I was expecting some fun horror, mixed with comedy in sort of a Buffy the Vampire Slayer kind of fashion with a bumbling hero and smart quips. I mean, with a title like Jack Brooks: Monster Slayer , was I wrong in expecting a variety of monsters get slayed as the title suggests? It didn't help much that the monsters looked uber cheesy. They looked like something right out of a Power Rangers episode. But to their credit, at least they stuck with practical make-up and effects rather than CG. The mo

Finally, the Xbox 360!!

So as I mentioned in a previous post, I received an Xbox 360 for Christmas from my dad. A great present it was! I've had 3 weeks to enjoy it so I guess I can give you my impressions of it now. First the controller. In truth, I haven't felt a controller this comfortable in my gaming life before. As a child who grew up on the 8-bit generation, with just a directional pad and 2 buttons, there was quite a learning curve getting used to using two analog sticks at the same time. You might say, "Hey Lam, how bout the PS2? You have that machine, and that has analog sticks". True, but of the twenty or so games I have for that, all of them used either only 1 analog stick, or allowed the option to switch on to the directional pad. Using 2 sticks at the same time was at first just uncomfortable. This made for all sorts of trouble as I was playing Gears of War . Luckily for me, I had computer controlled teammates that watched my back. I love the Media Center capabilities