Creationists aim too low

Creationists are aiming too low

I've been meaning for a while to write something more organized here about my understanding of science, Christianity, and the relationship between the two, since I am a fully participating member in both, feel completely comfortable about that, and constantly see implications (and sometimes explicit claims) that that's not possible, from both sides. I don't especially think that anything I write here is my idea, or unique in any way, but I don't see it on the web, at least in the form I understand it.

(I'll do this incrementally, since trying to get it all down at once has prevented me from starting it for over a year (as of December 2010).)

The fundamental basis of my understanding is that there are two sources of belief: external evidence and internal revelation. Both are necessary for a full understanding of life, which I'll get to eventually. I think these correspond to the two sides in the fight, interestingly enough. This also informs my understanding of how a believing Christian can also believe in the separation of Church and State. [To be continued.]

My main point is that Creationists are mistaken in two ways:

first, from a scientific perspective, it's abundantly clear that the Big Bang, a bit over 13 billion years ago, and the subsequent physical and biological evolution, really have happened. I think there's a wide-spread notion among Creationists that scientists are either misleading themselves or deliberately faking something. They are not.
second, this does not matter. As I'll try to show, what scientists currently believe about the universe is totally in tune with Christianity, including a number of things that were traditionally theological mysteries. It's so amazing, that there are some scientists who believe the universe has "intent"; they just don't call it God.

Problems for Creationists

As for the first point, let me start by saying that there's no reason to think that "believing the Bible" requires one to believe in a "6 day plus rest" creation around 4000BC (or within the last 10,000 years, or whatever). There are lots of problems with the Creationist point of view, without even getting into evolution. (An important thing to note is that by "Creationist" I mean people who support things like "creation science"; people who think that there's observable physical evidence of the Biblical account. If you believe the Genesis account is literal, but that God or the Devil managed to make things look really old, that's okay with me. Just as long as you don't expect the physical world to look like it was made 6000 years ago. See this for more.)

Problems:

First, do you believe Genesis 1 or Genesis 2? Genesis 1 is the one that most Creationists like, I think. It roughly corresponds to what science thinks happened. First the solar system, then the plants, then the animals, then people. But the problem is that in Genesis 2, it quite clearly says that God created Adam, then He created all the other critters, then He created Eve. So, did He create Eve before or after cows? It depends which chapter you like. And chapter 2 is the theologically important one, that leads into The Fall etc. Chapter 1 doesn't matter too much theologically, but that's the one that's plausible from a secular point of view. It's interesting to note that Augustine, who lived around 400AD, already argued that this can't be a literal story. For one thing, the Tree of Life (the first and last special tree mentioned in the story, that people always forget about) has to be Jesus. But it seems pretty unlikely that He was a literal tree in a literal garden.
Second, there's the problem of Egyptian archeology. When people started digging up ancient stuff in Egypt, they ran into a disturbing problem. As you get further back in time, you eventually get to a fully-developed Egyptian civilization around 3000 BC. It had obviously been there a while, with lots of buildings, a fully-developed pagan culture, etc. But this was apparently right after The Flood, and only 1000 years after Creation. That's still a problem for Creationists, I think.
All the rest of Science. There's really to much to go into, since it's not my main point. But basically, any scientific investigations into the past, in geology, astronomy, biology, etc., all point to an earth about 5 billion years old, in a universe over 13 billion years old. It's all consistent, and really looks that way.

Problems for Atheists

Just so the Creationists aren't too peeved, let me jump ahead to the first point on the other side: there's way too much good luck involved in the way the universe is set up. (Some of this is informed by Francis Collins' excellent book "The Language of God".)

First, it's ridiculous that a molecule like DNA exists. Most compounds are things like salt: NaCl. Really simple, and without a lot of complicated structure. So for starters, the fact that carbon (which also has really simple compounds like CO2) can produce gigantic long organic compounds like in paraffin and petroleum is already bizarre. But with just a few other elements, it produces really gigantic, really complicated things like proteins that you can build animals out of. But it gets even more bizarre. That a gigantic molecule like DNA can exist, which can be used by cells literally as a program for building proteins, from which you can then build animals, is just ridiculous. Oh, and the DNA can reproduce itself, so the new animals can have the same programming as their parents. Something like that really shouldn't be possible.

How science helps me understand the Bible

Understanding Time
The Bible talks about time in funny ways; "a thousand years are like a day" to God, and a lot of other similar stuff. A lot of Biblical references to time were always puzzling to people. There have been big theological fights, for example, about where souls "go" between death and the last day. Are they doing something, "sleeping", or do they pop from the moment of death to the last day somehow?
Take as a clear example the Transfiguration: Moses and Elijah show up and talk with Jesus, in front of Peter, James, and John, and then go away again. So, where were they "in between" the time when they were taken away by God, and showed up to talk with Jesus? (Interestingly, they were both taken away by God at the end of their lives.)
So it's interesting to me that, starting with Einstein, physics began treating time as part of the physical universe. The flow of time is affected by things like velocity and gravity (and this has been experimentally verified). It isn't some fixed, unchangeable framework outside the universe, as people used to think of it.
So if time is part of the (created) universe, a lot of the confusing Biblical concepts start to make sense. Time is part of creation, and God is outside of that (as well as within it, too). From a viewpoint outside of the universe, the past and future both "currently" exist. It's like looking at the whole universe as a movie, from the outside. You could go backwards and forwards in time, and pop into it wherever you wanted.
This means that things like the Transfiguration are no problem, if God can just pop them from the point of their death to Jerusalem in about 30AD, and then pop them out of the universe again until the last day.
Similarly, where do souls "go" in between death and the last day? Nowhere. They leave the universe, and come back in on the last day. No problem. They aren't anywhere in between; they don't have to be.
This is of course all kind of conjecture; I'm not sure any church has adopted this viewpoint officially. But it seems entirely reasonable to me, explains a lot, and fits in seamlessly with modern physics.
Understanding how God can act in the universe. (The modern understanding of physics, vs. the clockwork universe problem.) Based on quantum mechanics, entropy, and statistical mechanics.
Understanding Biblical miracles.

Other cool connections

"Let there be light" and the Big Bang.