Posted by Boje on January 31, 1999 at 05:06:17:
I’d like to offer a theory for discussion which attempts to reconcile the discrepancies between the Genesis "six day" creation account, and the scientific "10 - 20 billion year" theory of the origins of the universe. It’s not my theory, but I have come to accept it as the most plausible one that I have heard, and I have read them all, but I have never seen this one addressed in any forum. I would like to know what you all think about it.
As a Christian who believes in the truth of the Bible, I’ve always subscribed to some variation on the idea of God being outside of the constraints of time and space (since He created them, He’s not limited by them, nor any other law of nature, other than the "law" of conforming to His own essence), but I read a book a couple of years ago, where that concept was really "fleshed-out" with scientific reasoning to back it up. Gratefully, the author of that book, and a couple of other ones with similar themes, has real credentials and lends the credibility of a well trained mind to the subject.
Now, I realize the it would be much easier for me to just refer you to the cited book, especially in light of the fact that I have recently been roundly criticized for my incoherent writing style, but due to my past attempts at recommending books to the readers of this board, which were not particularly well received, I will refrain from such references, unless I am asked, and will, instead, attempt to explain it in my own words.
I will make some effort to explain the idea in the simplest terms which I can muster, in order to placate the self-appointed editorial board, however, that attempt may be at the cost of brevity. So please bear me out. The subject which I would like to discuss is specifically, the timeline of the beginning of the universe: from day-one to day-seven, or, if you prefer: from absolute beginning, to year 15 billion (or there about - the error factor, in this case, is not particularly important).
Suppose you are God. You have decided to write an account of the "beginning" for all people, at all times, for their edification. You want them to be able to refer to this account for confirmation that you were, indeed, the creator of everything, and you want to show that you did know what you were doing at the time. You have many inherent problems, in trying to construct this documentary account, not the least of which is your audience. If you are going to go through the exercise of putting this all down on paper (or clay, papyrus, parchment, or whatever), you have to consider, first of all, the problem of perspective: "I am the infinite God, the Creator of the Universe, of all things that ever were, or ever will be. How, on earth, am I going to explain ‘this’ to ‘them’, in terms that ‘they’ will understand?"
Well, if you are God, naturally, the first thing that you would do, is a "self-evaluation" study. "What are my strengths? What are my limitations?"; that sort of thing. The results of that study are conclusive - you have no weaknesses! You have no limitations! You can do anything that you wish! Your "readership", however, is another matter altogether. After commissioning a feasibility study, including some limited-participation, audience preview surveys and several focus groups, you conclude that the only way to go, is with metaphorical accounts, relying heavily on figurative depictions of some, admittedly, very complex intellectual and technical concepts. "I mean," you conclude, "these guys just aren’t ready for most of this stuff!"
In other words: you go for "the least common denominator", in terms of your audience focus, and well you should; because your intent, after all, is to construct a document which is understandable on a extremely variable number of levels of intellectual understanding; both in terms of technological advancement, and in terms of individual intellectual capability.
The next problem, with which you find yourself encumbered, is: what about the "time" factor? To be sure, "I am God; I understand that "time" is a variable concept, but these guys aren’t scheduled to come to that conclusion, until Einstein writes his Theory of General Relativity. I know that "time" is a relative function of mass and energy, but these guys don’t get that concept yet. I mean, they think that the sun rises and sets; they don’t know that they are revolving at a thousand miles per hour, moving around the sun at 20 miles per second, and moving around the center of the galaxy at ten times that speed! Not a problem; by the time that they are ready to understand it, I’ll give them Maimonides, Copernicus, Galileo, Newton, and Einstein, et al, to explain it". Regardless of the thought process God went through, we are left with an account which was left to us to figure out, but not one which was impossible to figure out. In fact, "science" has established, through various means, an approximate age of the universe of between 10 to 20 billion years.
Here’s how I explain it, but be forewarned; I’m not God, and I’m not Einstein: by starting with the value of the temperature, or the energy level, of the fixation, or confinement of quarks, which we know from experimental testing, involving the "smashing" of subatomic particles, of which quarks were among the earliest to have been formed, according to "Big bang" cosmological theory, we are able to compare that temperature, or energy level to the known existing level of "cosmic background radiation", which equally pervades all known interstellar "space". We can, thereby derive an energy degradation curve, with which to establish the limitations of known energy levels, from the beginning of the formation of matter, of which quarks are known constituent parts, to the levels which are perceived today in astronomical observations of interstellar space.
So, we have established energy level parameters. From Einstein’s equation describing relativity, we can derive the relative "time" elapse described by those parameters, because Energy is equal to Mass multiplied by the square of the speed of light (another "known" quantity). The "relative" aspect, is time compared to the variable quantity of mass or energy, which can be established by the energy gradient, to which I previously alluded. In other words: the elapse of the quantity of time is different for me, depending on my proximity to massive objects, or levels of energy with which I am associated due to inertia, or by which I am influenced because of acceleration due gravity. If I am moving at an extremely rapid speed, relative to you, I will experience time more slowly than you will. If my acceleration due to gravity, or weight is effected by the gravity of an extremely massive object, relative to a massive object to which you may be proximal, time will also elapse more slowly for me, than for you. In either case, energy levels directly effect the elapse of time.
Since velocity can be described as related directly to energy levels, radiation levels can describe the same degree of relativity, from the Big Bang to the beginning of human history. The way that "relativity" relates to God’s account of the beginning of the universe is as follows: God spoke from the point of the "beginning". He continued His narrative of the proceeding events from that perspective, but using a time scale to which all generations of humans would be able to relate: that of the 24 hour Earth day. Time varied for the entire universe, relative to God’s position at the beginning, due to the degradation of relative energy levels of each particular point in the universe, but God, necessarily, continued His description from the vantage of the beginning of His narrative in terms relative to Earth time. His perspective is, therefore applicable to any point in the universe, since it remains the same.
As it turns out, there is a formula which can be derived from what we know from the Theory of General Relativity, which demonstrates that a week of 24 hour days, from the vantage point of a person "speaking" from the point of the "Big bang", would compare to 15 billion years of Earth time, taking into account the degradation (or lowering) of energy levels in the intervening time period. What that means, is not that each day is not equal to 2.1 billion years, but rather, that each "day" is equal to a continually negatively variable time period as described by the formula, which is derived from known information given by the Theory of General Relativity. The point is: it corresponds known scientific data much more accurately in temporal terms with what is declared in the book of Genesis, than that of any other theory which I have heard of.
I would be happy to discuss this theory with anyone on this board, or, if you wish, (perhaps, if your name is Bob, and I have totally confused you), I will instead refer you to the above mentioned authoritative publication.
Boje