The Quantum Mechanics Theory
Vol: 96 Issue: 23 Wednesday, September 23, 2009
Continuing our discussion from yesterday, we ve examined the Gap Theory of Creation that postulates the pre-existence of the universe and the possibility that the Genesis story deals with the restoration of the earth after some cataclysmic disaster.
In this theory, God created the universe by an act of His sovereign will, as in the traditional Creation understanding. But this present world isn t all there is (or was) but actually is a kind of do-over.
As I said yesterday, there are clearly things in existence that make the case that the earth is older than six thousand years. For those who want me to provide proof that the world is older than six thousand years, what proof would you find acceptable?
Indeed what proof is there that it is not older? It boils down to faith. But there is nothing in Scripture that definitively says how long it took to create the world. The text says six days but is ambiguous about the length of a day .
The problem is obvious. How long is a day? Is a day is the length of time between sunup and sundown? Isn t the rest of a day is night.
Are they days or nights? The Bible says and the evening and morning are the first day.”
If that is literal, then more problems come up. If the earth is without form and void, then the first day isn t actually literal, since one needs the earth s rotation to define a day .
Personally, I am not certain about these details. But I know that if I argue that God can call a day any length of time He wants because He is God then I ve left the literalist camp.
If it is a figurative day of indeterminate length, then it is not a literal day.
Psalms 90:4 and 2nd Peter 3:8 both say that to the Lord, a day is as a thousand years and a thousand years as to one day.
Taking that understanding allows for a 12,000 year old earth but again, now we ve left the literalist camp in the name of literalism.
Is it a day? Or a thousand years? They are not literally the same.
It is important to understand at this point that I am not challenging the Creation Story. I may be challenging the way you understand it, but I am not challenging the Scriptures. I believe that Creation happened just the way Scripture says it did.
I am simply reexamining the relevant Scriptures to make sure I understand the way Scripture says it happened.
The Gap Theory doesn t contradict Scripture or science. But that doesn t necessarily make the Gap Theory true.
In the eyes of physics, the world used to be a predictable place. Aristotle and Ptolemy laid the foundation for the scientific understanding of the universe, which remained authoritative for one-and-a-half thousand years.
Until the time of Galileo, the Greeks were undisputed in natural science and astronomy. Galileo, Copernicus, and Newton changed this. Isaac Newton (1642-1727) revolutionized physics with his proposition that all bodies are governed by the three laws of motion.
The first law of motion states that a body continues in a state of rest or continues to be moving uniformly in a straight line unless a force is applied to the object.
The second law states that the force applied to an object is proportional to its mass multiplied by acceleration (F=ma).
The third law states that for every action there is an equal opposite reaction.
With these three simple laws, Newton created a whole new model of the universe, superseding Ptolemy’s model of epicycles.
In the 17th century, Marquis de LaPlace introduced the mechanistic universe theory. The mechanistic view sees the universe as an arrangement in which stars and planets interact with each other like springs and cogs in a timepiece, with God overseeing all.
If the initial positions and states of all objects in a mechanically determined universe are known, all events can be predicted until the end of time, simply by applying the laws of mechanics.
From a mechanistic standpoint, our universe operations according to a delicate balance, because only a slight increase or decrease in mass or velocity of the planets would let the planets either spiral into the Sun or wander into outer space.
The mechanistic view demands a design plan and a Designer. There was a necessity for a Creator God who initially put balance into the universe.
At the beginning of the 20th century, a Swiss patent clerk named Albert Einstein imagined what it would be like to ride through space on a beam of light and came to the conclusion that space and time can be visualized as coordinated systems, or reference frames.
The theory became known as the Theory of Relativity . Einstein s conclusions were applied to interactions between matter and radiation, resulting in the development of a new theory called quantum mechanics.
In contrast to Einstein’s Relativity, which is about the largest things in the universe, quantum theory deals with the tiniest things we know, the particles that atoms are made of, which we call “subatomic” particles.
It is all very complicated and it takes a much smarter mind than mine to understand it all, let alone explain it. But the ten-cent version goes something like this.
The Big Bang was set into motion quantum physics has no quarrel with the concept that it was set into motion by God it had to have been set into motion by some intelligence. It can t have just happened .
At the point of the Big Bang, the entire universe was tightly compressed, space, time and matter all scrunched together. Within the expanding universe, all these compressed elements appear normal.
Time moves at a constant speed because light travels at a constant speed. But everything used to be closer together and is now moving further apart.
Observed from our point on the space/time continuum, the universe would be uncountable billions of years old.
But when observed from the perspective of standing on the outside of the Big Bang, the period from the Big Bang itself to the Garden of Eden would be just a matter of days. By the sixth day of creation, the universe s expansion would have slowed to almost the point it is now, as would time itself.
The quantum mechanics theory finds plenty of time for the evolution of man within the six days of Creation. Where evolution science has its problems with quantum mechanics is in the fact that quantum mechanics demands a Creator to set it all in motion.
Ok, so neither quantum mechanics nor the Gap Theory are completely satisfactory. Neither lines up precisely with Scripture, but that isn t the point. The point is what it is in almost every case involving Scripture.
At first, science seems to disprove the Bible. Then, as more work is done in a particular field, the Bible version no longer seems so far off the mark. It isn t a case of making science conform to Scripture or Scripture conform to science. The more we learn, the more they conform to each other on their own.
It is the Bible that is true which is the intended point. Where science and the Bible conflict is in the way each is interpreted.
Now, back to my disclaimer. I am not a proponent of Intelligent Design, the Big Bang, quantum mechanics or the Gap Theory. I tend to agree with the mechanistic universe theory proposed by LaPlace, but in the end, I m a proponent of whatever is the truth.
Is a Creation ‘day’ a 24 hour rotation of the earth? Or is it one thousand years? Or, assuming the earth was without form and void and if light was the only thing created on the first day, some indeterminate period of time?
Do YOU know? For sure? How?
If my faith was rooted in the absolute literalness of Creation as I understand it from the first chapter of Genesis, then my faith is in my own interpretation of subjective material.
That means my faith is mostly in me. That is unacceptable I don t trust me that much I ve known me too long.
Personally, I believe the literal description of Creation. God spoke the universe into existence. He spoke light into existence. He spoke the earth into existence. He formed Adam from the dust of the earth.
I believe that from God s perspective it took six literal days. I don t know if it was six literal days from my perspective.
But the debate shows that faith and science are not mutually exclusive indeed, faith and science are actually in much closer harmony than we are generally given to believe.
And that is the central point it is the ONLY point.
The more we learn scientifically, the more we realize that an Intelligent Designer is necessary. It just so happens that we know the Intelligent Designer Personally.
Which makes us uniquely qualified to introduce Him to others by Name.