« The Official* Michael Jackson Speculation Survey/Poll | Main | teething »

and lo...

There was 100 words today, on the beginning of the world. Before you go over and read, an explanation (which I also left in the comments there):

I am strictly an evolutionist, but when someone sent me a link to the photo that is today's theme, I was immediately struck by how much it looked like what I imagined the creation of the world to look like when I was very young.

In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. Now the earth was without shape and empty, and darkness was over the surface of the watery deep, but the Spirit of God was moving over the surface of the water. God said, "Let there be light." And there was light!

That very specific moment, to be precise.

So today's story and photo is my eight year old view of what the start of humanity was like.

When I told this story to a friend, he said "so God ripped the sky a new asshole and it shit out two humans?"

Something like that.

[And don't forget while you are over there, to contribute your own 100 words]

Oh, and I have a new set up at Flickr.

Comments

Personally speaking, I've never seen the conflict between evolutionists and creationists.

Think on it this way; God is a timeless being, we are told. To him, scripture tells us, 1000 years is as one day, and one day is as 1000 years.

We're also told the earth was created in 6 days. But within the context of a timeless being, what constitutes a 'day'?

And for that matter, granted evolution exists, (and of that I hold little doubt) ...what of evolution suggests it wasn't designed that way?

Here's the problem with both sides of that argument... The hardest thing for man to admit is that there's something they don't understand... that something could be beyond their understanding, and that thereby, the thing not understod, or it's creator, is greater than they. So they tend to claim understanding even in lack of it, and we end up with both sides arguing about what they don't know, instead of standing in wonder of it all.

Like the eight year old child's POV, as you mention.

Except I'm an atheist, which negates all "God" aspects of the evolution/creation debate.

...what of evolution suggests it wasn't designed that way?

More importantly, what suggests it was designed at all?

The hardest thing for man to admit is that there's something they don't understand...

Nonsense. The whole of science is built on figuring out what we don't understand (if we understood it already, there'd be little need to experiment).

that something could be beyond their understanding,

For science to make any sense, one must assume that the universe is knowable, else there's little reason to engage in it.

and we end up with both sides arguing about what they don't know, instead of standing in wonder of it all.

I'm an atheist and a firm believer in evolution. I fight creationist nonsense at every turn. And I also marvel at the universe.

In the beginning, there was nothing. And God said, "Let there be light!" And there was still nothing. But you could see it.

I am not an atheist but I am scientifically inclined and whenever someone trys to talk to me about creation my reaction is: Give God more credit than that.

Having the "Big Bang" eventually result in the wondrous universe we live in is much more impressive than just creating the finished product. I wish I could stick around and see what develops next.

To repeat what I said at 100 words

I've always been impressed that Genesis reads like a primer on evolution for small children and primatives.

I've always been impressed that Genesis reads like a primer on evolution for small children and primatives.

Errr... ?

A primer on evolution wouldn't invoke a deity creating things as they are, asking man to name them all, and doing it in the wrong order.

I'd say it's a primer on evolution much like TV Guide is a primer on auto repair.

andy

work with me here...

And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters. And God said, Let there be light: and there was light.

Do YOU know what caused the Big Bang? Why was everything nothing, then something? What was the trigger?

You don't know? So why not say "God"?

out of order?

Hmmm.. nothing>light/darkness>waters/land/skies>dry land>plants>all animals have their start in the oceans>man ...

I said not a thing about whether or not God exists, I just remarked about how Genesis reads.

Sheesh.

God making a universe, would make a rather large bang, would it not?

As to what makes me think it designed, well, I find that the more I study the universe in all it's balances and complexities, the more it becomes impossible for me to think that it just happened by chance.

For science to make any sense, one must assume that the universe is knowable,

True. But that it is in fact understandable, doesn't mean we understand it yet. It being knowable also does not of itself aver that we ever WILL understand it, jst that the capability is there.

else there's little reason to engage in it.

Not true. There is, after all our questioning, probing nature, which is reason enough to prusue answers to questions we may never understand.

A primer on evolution wouldn't invoke a deity creating things

And why not? Be at least a little bit logical.... Does the idea that was a species have changed since our first arrival, mean of iself that a creator wasn't involved?

It strikes me that already, much of the discussion has been froma starting point of 'there is no God", and then trying to prove that point with negatives.

You don't know? So why not say "God"?

Um, because there's a complete lack of evidence? Because invoking the supernatural is an odd way to try to understand the natural?

Hell, why not say "Smoochies the All-Powerful Dancing Bear?"

Seriously, I'm not trying to be too snarky (despite appearances), but "Goddidit" isn't much of an answer, is it?

Hmmm.. nothing>light/darkness>waters/land/skies>dry land>plants>all animals have their start in the oceans>man ...

Actually, God creates heaven and earth first, and then goes about shaping them after he makes light. Then he brings forth grass - and then the stars - and then the Sun and the Moon (kind of makes you wonder how those grasses survived, huh?). Then he gets around to making the waters bring forth life... etc etc.

Of course, I'm following along with the first creation myth, and not the second that follows (and differs) later in Genesis.

I said not a thing about whether or not God exists, I just remarked about how Genesis reads.

Right, I understand that. It reads nothing like evolutionary biology, and can't even get its own story straight.

As to what makes me think it designed, well, I find that the more I study the universe in all it's balances and complexities, the more it becomes impossible for me to think that it just happened by chance.

A man is hit and killed by a piece of frozen urine falling from an airplane. Billions upon billions of minute actions had to unfold, just so, for that man to die. Was a divine hand behind it?

True. But that it is in fact understandable, doesn't mean we understand it yet. It being knowable also does not of itself aver that we ever WILL understand it, jst that the capability is there.

I agree. I never claimed otherwise.

Not true. There is, after all our questioning, probing nature, which is reason enough to prusue answers to questions we may never understand.

Not if one assumes that the universe isn't knowable; most of us don't enjoy exercises in futility.

And why not? Be at least a little bit logical.... Does the idea that was a species have changed since our first arrival, mean of iself that a creator wasn't involved?

More to the point, a primer on evolution wouldn't invoke a creator because evolution deals with the diversity of life, not the origin of it. There are plenty of Christian evolutionists (however they mostly voted for John Kerry and are hiding in shame now).

andy

You don't have children, do you?

When a very small child starts questioning you "where did I come from" and you first give them a simplified version of conception and birth, then they look at you, trusting, wide-eyed and say "but where was I before you and daddy got married?" you do not say "no where, babe. You did not exist and when you die you won't exist either." Not if you're a loving parent, you don't.

You don't have children, do you?

You know what say about "assuming...".

And when my daughter starts asking questions, she'll get basic answers that are true and correct.

As for the rest of what you wrote, I'm not sure I get your point. It's a far cry from at least getting a basic description of cosmological, planetary, and biological evolution right to telling your kids that death means dead in the end.

Hell, I'd be happy if the Bible could just make its own stories agree (well, I'd roll my eyes a lot less anyway).

I'm surprised that God couldn't get the order of creation quite right, but he was pretty darn clear about who needed to be stoned and when. Strange, strange god, that one.

So Andy

You're daughter says "And where was I before you and mommy got married?"

What are you going to say?

You should NOT ignore the deep human need to find that life has PURPOSE. And it's much much harder to achieve if one promotes the belief that dirt, rocks, grass, fish, animals and humans have no value differences.

You're daughter says "And where was I before you and mommy got married?"

Both my kids asked that question when they were young and I said "you didn't exist." I gently explained, given their ages, that they were a creation of love.

You're daughter says "And where was I before you and mommy got married?"

What are you going to say?

Why, Fiona, you were up in Heaven with the puppies and the angels!

You're right, that's much better and more honest than something like "You didn't exist" along with a comparison they would understand (e.g. the puppy didn't exist before it was born).

Hey, if you want to lie to your kids, knock yourself out. I was lied to and spent years feeling guilty about a wee tug on the weiner.

My kids deserve better.

You should NOT ignore the deep human need to find that life has PURPOSE. And it's much much harder to achieve if one promotes the belief that dirt, rocks, grass, fish, animals and humans have no value differences.

So we should lie so people can feel good about themselves? I suppose it makes sense in the case of "does this dress make me look fat?" but on a matter of importance like meaning and values, I think honesty is the better option.

Further, who is claiming that animal, vegetable, mineral all have the same value? I smell a strawman.

An attempt at a truce:

I would no more suggest anyone should believe in a deity any more than I would suggest someone should not believe in one.

My own belief system is rather Kierkegaard-esque in some respects; I simply desire something in addition to objectivity, something beyond reason. However, unlike Kierkegaard, I would not assert that everyone shares that same desire.

I respect those who desire to seek only objective truth for their personal satisfaction and purpose, and I hope they can respect my desire for something other than objective truth in order to achieve my own personal satisfaction and purpose.

That's the great thing about the individual self; each one can chart its own wants and pursuits.

That's the great thing about the individual self; each one can chart its own wants and pursuits.

Hey, no argument here. People are free to believe in God, gods, or none of the above. People can find purpose by thinking all dogs go to Heaven, that they might get 72 virgins, or accepting that life is one shot then game over.

I just want people to realize that Genesis looks nothing like evolutionary theory aside from the fact they both use words.

...or accepting that life is one shot then game over.

That's where you overstate it a bit, I think (and don't worry, I'm not going to ask you to prove a negative). It would be better stated "or accepting that there is no objective evidence of lift ater death." Since your desire (I think) is for objective evidence and truth, those two statements are virtually synonymous, but not so for everyone.

Yes, Hubris, but I'm right. ;)

lift aterlife after

I just lost faith in my typing skills.

Hubris

Certainly I haven't argued here about the existence/non-existence of God, and I haven't made fun of atheists or accused THEM of "lying" when they say everything is just an accident.

Personally, I don't care where each individual gets their values, as long as their values are good ones.

I only point out that a logical argument that life itself has purpose without a belief in a creator is harder to make. Why Ayn Rand (atheist) promoted a system of morality of man qua man she was minimally positing the value that man was fundamentally different from rocks, plants and animals, even if her difference was based on man's ability of rational self-awareness rather than a creator. In both instances, is the elevation of man over other things/creations ... man as divine.

Darleen,

I was (probably ineffectually) trying to serve as a peacemaker, not trying to accuse anyone of anything. My apologies to everyone if it came across otherwise.

The thing is, you're starting out your last paragraph with the assumption that life should have a larger specific purpose. Of course, I don't have a problem with that (I share that subjective belief). However, I can understand that other people don't share that belief. Someone like Andy is not under a burden to explain why life has purpose in his or her worldview, when I think he would argue that there is no need for life to have purpose per se (sorry that I'm putting words in your mouth, Andy, feel free to correct me).

We're starting from different assumptions. And again, that's fine by me.

Hubris, thank you,

I understand and appreciate your comments. And yes, maybe I was making an assumption on whether or not life's purpose should be up for discussion.

I think that is what drives most people to religion and or considering the existence of a creator. A question that has haunted man from the first time he looked out of his cave at the night sky

"Why am I here?"

Andy:

I never claimed otherwise

Good. Nice to see I'm not the unreasonable SOB I'm so often made out as. (grin)

Not if one assumes that the universe isn't knowable; most of us don't enjoy exercises in futility.

But it is still possibly futile. And the point here being, Andy, that what you're talking about is PERCEPTION, having no facts either way. You seem to be basing an awful lot on a perception wherein you have no facts to rely on, eh?

More to the point, a primer on evolution wouldn't invoke a creator because evolution deals with the diversity of life, not the origin of it.

Actually, either way assumes both the diversity of it and it's origin... either we're talking about some being desinging such diversity into the plan, or radom chance developing it.

And you bring up an interesting point; What I will call "pure Evolutionists" have thusfar been unable to explain the creation of life, much less duplicate it.

Indeed, as I remarked to someone else, it's the complexity of it which is one of the things which leads to toward an understanding that this is not all just by chance.

As someone once quipped... Look in the mirror... do you really think a bunch of molicules just swimming around had the sense of humor to make you look like that? (grin)

But it is still possibly futile.

Right, again, I didn't say otherwise. However, for the pursuit of science to be sensible, there needs to be a base assumption that the universe is knowable (be it true or false).

Indeed, as I remarked to someone else, it's the complexity of it which is one of the things which leads to toward an understanding that this is not all just by chance.

Alas, the argument from complexity leads to an even more complex designer, who by sheer nature of its own complexity must require a designer as well. It ends up being turtles all the way down.