Thanks for this timely perspective… I was talking with a friend recently about human (aka scientific) knowledge… and I liken it to a balloon… all we know and learn is contained within the balloon… God is both what’s within AND outside of the membrane of the balloon… as Buzz Lightyear said “To infinity and beyond “!
I love this story about Einsteins struggles with the truth hidden in his math. Most people have never heard about it. Every Christian who believes science is their enemy should read about it. The strange part is that in spite of Genesis 1:1 the Church believed in an eternal universe for centuries because of their respect for the thinking of Aristotle.
Indeed. Aquinas tried to reconcile an eternal universe with Genesis 1, and I think he did about as well as anyone could, but the true resolution came with the scientific discovery of a beginning.
I remember watching Particle Fever and being intrigued (though thoroughly confused) when the physicists talked about the size of the Higgs boson particle. Apparently, if the size was ~115 GeV it meant one thing and if the size was ~140 GeV it meant something else. The particle landed in between the two sizes (~125 GeV) which didn’t align with the predictions of either camp. That literally made me weep.
I was surprised by the raw emotion I felt watching Peter Higgs learn that his ‘God particle’ is real. It was truly beautiful. God’s invisible qualities and divine nature are revealed in Creation, whether individual physicists acknowledge it or not. The fact that the particle is different from what anyone expected is so typical of our Creator. He seems to genuinely love surprises.
First, I love the title of your Substack. I just had to collapse the field into reality by observing this article...and I'm super glad I did.
This is my first exposure to your work, and I really enjoyed it. Your perspective is fun, epistemically humble, and super-refreshing. I most appreciated your insight regarding the big picture and keeping the main thing the main thing. It's alright for our theories, models, and even many of our biblical interpretations to stay provisional—especially in cases where a cosmic dose of mystery comes along with our best attempts at an exegesis or observation, no matter what.
All truth is God's truth, and our adventure toward finding it will always be an asymptote on this side of the dim glass. That's partly what makes the intersection of science and philosophy so much fun. It's like golf! There's no beating the game—only playing it, and always trying to improve.
Thanks for such a fun and informative article. I'm looking forward to reading more of your work.
Jonathan Michael Huls
P.S. I'm an applied scientist with real skin in the game (a corporate jet pilot); and a Christian philosopher and apologist working on my PhD. I'm excited to have found you!
I believe in God and science, and I believe God intended for humanity to develop science. Perhaps one day science will even explain God, but I'm not holding my breath on that one.
The practical reality we face is that recognizing God definitely benefits humanity and our quest for survival, but science can be a mixed bag. Applying science alongside faith in God is our key to preserving humanity's survival.
Thank you for this text. I like your approach, and there is a lot of wisdom to it.
I am not here to force my point of view but after much consideration and reading on this topic, in my humble opinion, any attempts to harmonize the text of Genesis 1 with modern science (also 1-11) is doomed to fail. Forcing either one, i.e. text or science, into the other will not fit the receiving receptacle. A concordist approach will either do violence to the text (OEC) or to science (YEC) because the text of Genesis 1 has nothing to do with science in the first place.
The text of Genesis 1 has a religious and theological purpose in the first place. Moses was addressing the concerns and questions of the day in a context of ANE polytheism. Therefore, our reading and understanding of Genesis 1 must be done in light of his intent and its original audience, i.e. its literary genre (ancient cosmology/cosmogony text) and context. In other words, Genesis 1 is to be understood in light of the other Ancient Near East rival creation stories or accounts existing at the time. This frees the text from any dependence on modern science and is a much more promising, fruitful and richer approach to the text in terms of meaning.
Here are two references that are very useful to make sense of Genesis 1 I found very helpful:
• The Meaning of Creation: Genesis and Modern Science by Conrad Hyers
• The Manifold Beauty of Genesis 1: One: A Multi-Layered Approach by Gregg Davidson and Kenneth J. Turner
• Also many others like "In the Beginning…We Misunderstood: Interpreting Genesis 1 in its Original Context" and "(Mis)interpreting Genesis: How the Creation Museum Misunderstands the Ancient Near Eastern Context of the Bible"
Great work, Sarah! I’m tired and it’s late but I’ll return with my two cents shortly. I liked the dismissive, no nonsense approach to the atheists who use the usual specious “arguments” in these discussions. Insofar as they have any merit they have already been considered and rejected. And they are annoying, repetitive, and time-consuming. And boring! If you have something cogent to say and on this topic, excellent. Otherwise…!
I know I'm being picky, but I think it's important to keep perspective: It is not wrong to think of the earth as the center of the solar system or of the universe, just inconvenient. Mathematically defining the earth as the center of the solar system is doable. But it makes the math far more complex than it needs to be.
I'm only pointing this out because people often hem themselves in intellectually. That's not a good thing to do.
The belief that humans and their God-given Earth are the center of Creation (as Eden before the Fall) is most aligned with Genesis - and a flat terrain with firmament above and enveloping it as well. Cheers, Tom
Thanks for this timely perspective… I was talking with a friend recently about human (aka scientific) knowledge… and I liken it to a balloon… all we know and learn is contained within the balloon… God is both what’s within AND outside of the membrane of the balloon… as Buzz Lightyear said “To infinity and beyond “!
I love this story about Einsteins struggles with the truth hidden in his math. Most people have never heard about it. Every Christian who believes science is their enemy should read about it. The strange part is that in spite of Genesis 1:1 the Church believed in an eternal universe for centuries because of their respect for the thinking of Aristotle.
Indeed. Aquinas tried to reconcile an eternal universe with Genesis 1, and I think he did about as well as anyone could, but the true resolution came with the scientific discovery of a beginning.
I remember watching Particle Fever and being intrigued (though thoroughly confused) when the physicists talked about the size of the Higgs boson particle. Apparently, if the size was ~115 GeV it meant one thing and if the size was ~140 GeV it meant something else. The particle landed in between the two sizes (~125 GeV) which didn’t align with the predictions of either camp. That literally made me weep.
I was surprised by the raw emotion I felt watching Peter Higgs learn that his ‘God particle’ is real. It was truly beautiful. God’s invisible qualities and divine nature are revealed in Creation, whether individual physicists acknowledge it or not. The fact that the particle is different from what anyone expected is so typical of our Creator. He seems to genuinely love surprises.
He does indeed (Proverbs 25:2).
Top Three Religion/Science events:
3. Transfiguration
2. The Star of Bethlehem
1. Let There Be Light (Genesis Creation)
(Yes, I know, I forgot Rising from the Dead and Ascending into Heaven. Have at it.)
I like the countdown style.
I don't think science can touch the Resurrection and Ascension, and I think that's deliberate.
The singularity negated it’s self to create the universe. That’s the principle of the cross. Creation through Christ. :)
Excellent insight! Thank you!
Hi Sarah!
First, I love the title of your Substack. I just had to collapse the field into reality by observing this article...and I'm super glad I did.
This is my first exposure to your work, and I really enjoyed it. Your perspective is fun, epistemically humble, and super-refreshing. I most appreciated your insight regarding the big picture and keeping the main thing the main thing. It's alright for our theories, models, and even many of our biblical interpretations to stay provisional—especially in cases where a cosmic dose of mystery comes along with our best attempts at an exegesis or observation, no matter what.
All truth is God's truth, and our adventure toward finding it will always be an asymptote on this side of the dim glass. That's partly what makes the intersection of science and philosophy so much fun. It's like golf! There's no beating the game—only playing it, and always trying to improve.
Thanks for such a fun and informative article. I'm looking forward to reading more of your work.
Jonathan Michael Huls
P.S. I'm an applied scientist with real skin in the game (a corporate jet pilot); and a Christian philosopher and apologist working on my PhD. I'm excited to have found you!
One of my favorite quotes is Harold Schroeder’s, “We know as much about God as a fly knows about nuclear physics.”
I believe in God and science, and I believe God intended for humanity to develop science. Perhaps one day science will even explain God, but I'm not holding my breath on that one.
The practical reality we face is that recognizing God definitely benefits humanity and our quest for survival, but science can be a mixed bag. Applying science alongside faith in God is our key to preserving humanity's survival.
Hi Sarah,
Thank you for this text. I like your approach, and there is a lot of wisdom to it.
I am not here to force my point of view but after much consideration and reading on this topic, in my humble opinion, any attempts to harmonize the text of Genesis 1 with modern science (also 1-11) is doomed to fail. Forcing either one, i.e. text or science, into the other will not fit the receiving receptacle. A concordist approach will either do violence to the text (OEC) or to science (YEC) because the text of Genesis 1 has nothing to do with science in the first place.
The text of Genesis 1 has a religious and theological purpose in the first place. Moses was addressing the concerns and questions of the day in a context of ANE polytheism. Therefore, our reading and understanding of Genesis 1 must be done in light of his intent and its original audience, i.e. its literary genre (ancient cosmology/cosmogony text) and context. In other words, Genesis 1 is to be understood in light of the other Ancient Near East rival creation stories or accounts existing at the time. This frees the text from any dependence on modern science and is a much more promising, fruitful and richer approach to the text in terms of meaning.
Here are two references that are very useful to make sense of Genesis 1 I found very helpful:
• The Meaning of Creation: Genesis and Modern Science by Conrad Hyers
• The Manifold Beauty of Genesis 1: One: A Multi-Layered Approach by Gregg Davidson and Kenneth J. Turner
• Also many others like "In the Beginning…We Misunderstood: Interpreting Genesis 1 in its Original Context" and "(Mis)interpreting Genesis: How the Creation Museum Misunderstands the Ancient Near Eastern Context of the Bible"
Very well said!
A lucid interweaving of science, history, and theology. Good stuff.
I loved Black Holes and Time Warps by Kip Thorne!
Great work, Sarah! I’m tired and it’s late but I’ll return with my two cents shortly. I liked the dismissive, no nonsense approach to the atheists who use the usual specious “arguments” in these discussions. Insofar as they have any merit they have already been considered and rejected. And they are annoying, repetitive, and time-consuming. And boring! If you have something cogent to say and on this topic, excellent. Otherwise…!
I really like Schroeder's ideas, but not in a wholesale way. God's perspective is clearly the frame of reference for the creation days.
I know I'm being picky, but I think it's important to keep perspective: It is not wrong to think of the earth as the center of the solar system or of the universe, just inconvenient. Mathematically defining the earth as the center of the solar system is doable. But it makes the math far more complex than it needs to be.
I'm only pointing this out because people often hem themselves in intellectually. That's not a good thing to do.
The belief that humans and their God-given Earth are the center of Creation (as Eden before the Fall) is most aligned with Genesis - and a flat terrain with firmament above and enveloping it as well. Cheers, Tom