[Alpha Kodiak]

Originally posted by Chronon:
I have to say that in my own personal experience, St. Thomas is correct. A literal interpretation of the Bible - especially Genesis - is a HUGE obstacle to belief. If my choices are between Genesis (as it's literally written) and the Big Bang and evolution, I'll go with the Big Bang and evolution. Only a metaphorical reading of Genesis could work for me. In other words, the Big Bang was the method used by a divine being to create a universe that follows physical laws, the Garden of Eden is a morality tale, and the history of Hebrews is for background. When it comes down to it, I just cannot dismiss millions of years of historical evidence (dinosaurs, fossils, paleolithic human settlements).

In this area I steer a middle course. The Big Bang theory really doesn't explain creation, since there must have been something in order for it to explode. It is entirely conceivable that part of the act of creation was a "Big Bang", but there must have been something that existed prior to it, whether an intelligence or not.

I don't believe that the Bible attempted to explain all of the details of the physics of creation to nomadic tribesmen and shepherds with no frame of reference to understand it (perhaps we don't even have sufficient knowledge to completely understand it today), and the six days of creation seem more of a mnemonic device for remembering order than anything else. The important message that Genesis was trying to convey was that creation was an act of God.

I heard an interesting speculation by a physicist who believes in the veracity of the Bible. In Genesis 1:2 there is a description of the Spirit of God hovering over the waters. The word in Hebrew for hovering conveys the idea of fluttering like a butterfly. The image of this verse then is the picture of God stirring up the "sea" of matter that He used to form the universe.

An interesting picture, if nothing else.