THIS OLDE EARTH

“In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.” (Genesis 1:1)

This, the first verse of the Bible, answers some questions for me, but leaves others unaddressed.  It states that the universe is not eternal, that it did have a beginning, and that that beginning occurred when God created it.  It implies that God existed before the universe came into being (how else could he create it?).  It also implies that He is not made out of the same “stuff” that the universe is made of.  God can be said to be transcendent, that is separate from and outside of this universe, just like my artist daughter-in-law is separate from and outside of her print art*.

This verse does not tell me, however, how he made the universe or how He made living things.  Let’s start with living things.  As a polymer chemist I do not feel qualified to speak in depth about the “how He made living things” question.  There is, however, mounting evidence from the fields of biology and geology that God used a process that occurred over some period of time.  Evolution used to be a four letter word for me, but why should it be?  Later in Genesis chapter one God commands the earth to bring forth plant life, and then to bring forth living creatures.  Interesting!  He commanded the earth itself to bring forth life.  He spoke life-giving power into nature.  Does it matter how long in days as I count them – or He counts them - that it took for this to be accomplished?  If I were God I would have taken my time at it, and I would have enjoyed the creating process.  Why call forth just a few animal species?  Variety is the spice of creation.  Why not make some really interesting ones like the platypus, the hammer head shark, the ant eater, the wood pecker, and thousands of other beautiful, strange and unique creatures?  I think of God as being happy and full of life – as having really enjoyed the whole process of creating life.

Genesis also does not tell us how or when God created the universe.  The “when” question can be determined with some certainty.  Astronomers have observed that the universe is expanding, and they have measured how fast it is expanding.  Calculations based on the speed with which galaxies are moving and the present size of the universe indicate that there was a big bang over ten billion years ago - when this expansion started.  We have some “atomic clocks” here on earth that can help us to calculate the age of certain specific rock formations.  This data then helps us estimate the age of our earth.  Uranium has a half life of about 4.5 billion years.  Deposits of uranium minerals in the earth’s crust decay in a predictable way, with half of the uranium decaying to form lead and other daughter elements each 4.5 billion years.  So, by measuring the relative amounts of uranium, lead, and other elements remaining in the deposits, we can calculate the age of the deposits.  Uranium ore deposits in South Africa have been determined to be 1.7 billion years old.  Atomic clocks don’t lie.  They are not affected by heat or their environment.  Assumptions do have to be made in doing this kind of dating.  We assume that what are taken to be decay elements like lead, have not moved into or out of the deposit, but the assumptions are reasonable, and the data is compelling.

We have nothing to fear from data – all data that good science provides.  It is what it is.  Sound data provides accurate information about our world.  If reliable dating of uranium deposits indicates that the earth is about five billion years old, then God made the earth five billion years ago.  I am comfortable with good data. 

*See my previous entries, “The Artist” and “More on the Artist”.

THE SCIENCE OF BISCUITS

“And God blessed them; and God said to them, ‘Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth, and subdue it;’” (Genesis 1:28a, NAS). 

Science has proven to be a very useful tool, enabling mankind to fulfill God’s commands to fill and subdue the earth.  Simply put, science uses a systematic method of gathering information to help us understand how God has made everything from atoms to galaxies.  Industry then capitalizes on the information that science provides to make new and better medicines, to genetically engineer seeds that produce more abundant crops, and to build faster computers.  But practically speaking, how does science work? What do scientists do?

Instead of describing what I do in the lab as a polymer chemist, it might be easier if I describe how the tool of science could be used in the kitchen.  Last week I made a batch of biscuits (yes, I enjoy cooking almost as much as chemistry).  Making good biscuits is easy.  Just use a pastry cutter to blend flour, baking powder, and a dash of salt with butter.  The blend should be light and crumbly, not heavy and pasty, or dry and dusty.  Then add milk all at once and quickly stir just enough to get a uniform mixture.  Spoon out dabs about the size of a walnut on a cookie sheet, and bake for 10 minutes in a pre-heated 425 F degree oven.  Mmm!  I like them best hot out of the oven with honey, and I don’t mind the sticky fingers. J

Now for the science.  Why does the recipe call for three teaspoons of baking powder, and what will happen if I use two or four teaspoons?  Easy enough, I just whip up a few batches with different amounts of baking powder and see what happens.  You guessed it, with less baking powder the biscuits do not rise as much, and with more they rise more.  But how much more?  I measure the exact size of my biscuits and make a mathematical correlation between the size (volume) of my biscuits and the amount of baking powder used.  I might end up with an equation like this: 

Volume of biscuits in cubic centimeters = (rise factor) x (teaspoons of baking powder)

Once I run several more experiments to make sure that I have correctly determined the value of the rise factor, I’ll begin to feel like I’m gaining an understanding of the science of biscuit making.  However, being the inquisitive scientist that I am, I will then go on to study how biscuit quality changes with the amount of butter, flour, milk, and salt used, as well as with baking time and temperature.  It is simply a matter of systematically changing each of my variables (cups of flour, oven temperature, baking time), and then observing/ measuring results (biscuit size, color, taste).

There is so much that we can learn when science done well, like how to make the perfect biscuit, but I have found that science can be un-safe for us scientists.  The practice of science tends to produce in us a peculiar arrogance.  If I study biscuit making in great detail, I will want to publish my results in a prestigious scientific culinary journal (please bear with just a bit of tongue-in-cheek here).  I will likely then be invited to speak about my work in symposiums on food chemistry.  Within a few years I will aspire becoming known as the world’s leading expert in the field of biscuit science.  Over time I may come to identify myself so strongly with the fine science of making biscuits that I will conveniently forget that good biscuits have been made by little known cooks for hundreds of years.  It is so easy as a scientist to lose sight of the fact that I did not create the biscuit, I merely study it.

Science also has limitations.  Though it can be used to systematically study and gain knowledge about everything from atoms to biscuits to galaxies, it has marginal value as a tool to help us gain knowledge about anything that cannot be directly observed, measured, and studied in a systematic way.   How can I use the tool of science to unfold the mystery of love, beauty, joy, or truth*?  Science is powerless to probe the spiritual realm, to prove or disprove the existence of spirits, gods, or God.  Science has made great strides understanding the workings of God’s creation, even how He might have gone about making it, but science cannot tell us why He created the universe.  More importantly science cannot tell us why we were created.

*Neuroscience is capable of monitoring the chemical and electrical changes in our brains that occur as we observe a beautiful sunset, read a love poem, or grapple with moral issues, but I would contend that beauty, love, and truth are more than the measured responses of our brains to these intangibles.

MORE ON THE ARTIST

                              God    -------------->     Universe

                                                                     Matter, time energy

                                                                     Life

  

 I find that the artist analogy is helpful in understanding God’s relationship to the universe and the world.  Artists design and create original pieces of art that are a unique expression of themselves, and yet the art pieces are separate from them.  The artist is not made of the same stuff as the art.

A second analogy that can help us understand God’s relationship to what He has created is that of the architect/ builder.  For over a year my son and his wife lived in a house that was designed and built by an architect who was his mentor and friend.  During this year the architect lived in a smaller house on the same property.  My daughter-in-law likes to cook, so many nights she would cook for three, and the architect would join them for dinner.  It was his house, designed and built by him, so by all rights he could have visited it any time he pleased – but of course he respected their rights in doing so. 

This architect/ builder relationship between God and all He has created can be represented by the drawing above.  God is transcendent, that is separate from, and made of different stuff than what He has created: the universe, matter, time, energy, and life.  And yet, God is also immanent.  The Architect/ Builder of all creation is near, and He is free to enter his creation as He sees fit.  However, being free to be present only when He pleases, and being made of different stuff than His creation, He cannot be studied by science.  His existence or non-existence cannot be proven by science.  God can, however be known.