SCISSION I - CREATION
What is science?
Compound Microscope
By Hensoldt Wetztar
Of Germany
Webster's defines 'science' in part as "knowledge or a system of
knowledge covering general truths or the operation of general laws
especially as obtained and tested through scientific method." Webster's
Learning Dictionary defines the 'scientific method' thus: the process
that is used by scientists for testing ideas and theories by using
experiments and careful observation. Careful observation implies the doctrine of empiricism;
that is, science is based on observable tests that lead to a conclusion
that proves a scientific hypothesis and are repeatable, yielding the
same results every time the experiment is performed.
Thermometer made for Linnaeus
in the workshop of the Royal
Swedish Academy of Sciences by
Johan Gustav Hasselström at the
end of the 1770's.
Photo from The Linnaeus Museum in Uppsala.
As empirical evidence is gathered, scientists can suggest a hypothesis to explain the phenomenon1|
. This new explanation is used to make falsifiable predictions that are
testable by experiment or observation. When a hypothesis proves
unsatisfactory, it is either modified or discarded2|.
RCA 77DX 'ribbon'
microphone - 1954
Utah 16 Drum
1920S Antique Radio Loudspeaker
Utah Radio Products
A scientific method seeks to explain the events of nature in a reproducible way3|.
Taken in its entirety, a scientific method allows for highly creative
problem solving while minimizing any effects of subjective bias on the
part of its users (namely the confirmation bias)4|.
Skidded and skidless guages for measuring roughness of a surface.
http://www.qualitymag.com/articles/84505-quality-101-surface-finish-measurement-basics
These statements are, naturally, generalizations. Suffice it to say that generally science is founded on the 'empirical method'5|.
Webster's defines 'empirical' as 'originating in or based on
observation or experience. . . . capable of being verified or disproved
by observation or experiment.'
The
Association for Chemoreception Sciences (AChemS) is an international
association that advances understanding of the senses of taste and
smell.
http://www.achems.org/i4a/pages/index.cfm?pageid=1
In broad - but specific - terms, science is founded on the five senses.
Scientific instruments extend the scope of human senses, but are still
essentially tied to the advantages and disadvantages of the five
sensory organs, organs for: sight, sound, smell, taste, touch.
Science has accomplished truly marvelous things, brought great
labor-saving devices and helped to tame a sometimes tumultuous
environment. By repeated observations and experimentations science can
even predict events, such as a supernova of the aging 'red giant' star,
Betelgeuse, located in the right shoulder of the constellation Orion.
It could explode tomorrow . . . or in a million years; but it will
predictably explode. Betelgeuse is calculated to be 640 light years
distance from earth . . . although it could be anywhere in the range of
180 to 1,300 light years distance from our solar system6|.
This idea that Betelguese will undergo a supernova has some prior
empirical evidence to support it. According to scientific interpreters,
on July 4 or 5 of 1054 AD a super nova in the region of the star Zeta
Tauri [in the constellation of Taurus] lit up the earthly skies and
created the Crab Nebula7|.
This author carries no brief against science. Within its intended scope
it is a valuable tool. However, it is wise to admit its limitations,
something a few of its disciples are reticent to do. Science is
conceived to deal with the material world and our relationship with it.
Because it cannot measure what cannot be perceived by the five senses, it is incapable of dealing with issues of faith.
The Scriptural definition of faith is given in the book of Hebrews, chapter 11: Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.
'Hope' is an abstract thinking process whereby symbols of absent
objects are created in the mind; the fact that the experimental
evidence is 'not seen' does not bode well for science to be able to
measure anything involved. In Hebrews 11: 3 the Scripture further
states, '. . . so that things which are seen were not made of things which do appear.' This maxim would seem to totally contravene the bounds of science.
This does not mean that the two 'schools' can share no confidence. For example, the issue of creation.
Creation: In Six Days
The pragmatic follower of scientific thought will sometimes challenge
the Bible believer, 'Do you really think that the world and all the
universe was made in six days?' The believer will defensively respond,
'The Bible says so and that settles it.' There is no consensus possible.
But suppose that the truth lies somewhere in between the two extremes.
Here is a copy of the Julian Calendar with Bible events superimposed.
Julian Modern Event
0000 4713BC ALPHA (beginning)
0100
4613BC end 1st day creation (the evening and
the morning) 'Edenic' period
0200 4513BC end 2nd day creation 'Edenic' period
0300 4413BC end 3rd day creation 'Edenic' period
0400 4313BC end 4th day creation 'Edenic' period
0500 4213BC end 5th day creation 'Edenic' period
0600 4113BC end 6th day creation 'Edenic' period
0700 4013BC end of day of G·d's rest; life breathed into Adam
0724
3989BC fall from Eden; begin 1st day new
creation [one day =
thousand years (2 Peter 3:8)]
1322 3391BC Enoch born
1387 3326BC Methuselah born
1630 3083BC Adam dies
1687 3026BC G·d takes Enoch
1724 2989BC begin 2nd day new creation
1756 2957BC Noah born
2259 2454BC Shem born to Noah
2356 2357BC Methuselah dies; Noah 600 years old; flood begins
POST-DILUVIAN AGE
Julian Modern Event
2357 2356BC flood waters dried
2458 2255BC Peleg born (in his days the earth was divided)
2649 2064BC Abram born
2706 2007BC Noah dies
2724 1989BC begin 3rd day new creation
2859 1854BC Shem dies
3724 989BC begin 4th day new creation
4724 0012AD begin 5th day new creation; Jesus alive now
4776
0064AD (approx) Nero Cæsar persecutes
Christians; named by many as first antichrist
5724 1012AD begin 6th day new creation
6660 1948AD 2nd antichrist born?
6724 2012AD {?} begins the Millennium of peace, the 7th day of G·d's rest; Satan bound.
7724 3012AD {?} Satan released, his ``little season´´ - 276 years; finish 'Edenic' period
7901 3189AD ?onslaught of Gog & Magog
7980 3268AD end of full Julian period; ?begin final judgment
8000 3288AD OMEGA; END OF AGE
This calendar is based on the current Julian Period calculation [made by Joseph Scaliger8|]
that in the year 4713 BC the Roman Indication Cycle, the solar year and
the lunar year began on the same date and that they would run variously
separate for 7980 years when they would exactly coincide again. [For
various reasons the above calculation includes a 'year zero'.]
The 'Hands of Creation'
The purpose of this calendar in the present context is to show that the 'seven days of creation' of Genesis could be going on right now!
We would now be in the sixth day of the present creation! It has been
generally conceded that Genesis may account for at least two creations9|,
and that the present 'age' is simply the current creation. Perhaps in
previous creations there were dinosaurs, ice ages, catastrophic
asteroids... whatever.
Just as the above Scriptural-view credits the ever-changing aspects of
'creation' to an on-going process, so does science catalogue the short-
and long-term changes constantly present in the vast environment around
us.
This theme is inextricably intertwined with the great delusion mentioned in 2 Thessalonians chapter 2. We must return to this presently.
Science has formulated an hypothesis of sort-of-creation: the Big Bang Theory10|, associated with such prominent names as Albert Einstein, Edwin Hubble and Stephen Hawking. The theory states that at one ?time the universe was very hot and very dense, which caused it to expand rapidly - explosively
- thus cooling, resulting in its currently eexpanding state. This neat
theory would seem to elaborate systematically and methodically on the
first chapter of Genesis. It makes no claim as to original cause nor
subsequent effect: it just happened.
Oddly, many believe that this scientific theory eliminates the need for
God. No one can explain how this can be accounted for, other than that
it simply does not mention God. What the original dense heat was
composed of or from whence it came is treacherous ground for science.
What Genesis implies is that before the Beginning God was able to not exist
- there was 'no thing'. This would be the Grreat Unknowable God that
some ancients referred to as 'Who?' [Isaiah 40:26] Naturally science
cannot contain a state known as 'no thing' in the absolute. Scripture
implies that there was nothing whatsoever, including time. The mind of faith
can conceptually conceive of this state. Science can not, because it
cannot be measured or duplicated. In the incomprehensible 'no-thing'
the God who was able to not exist called up faith [the evidence of things not seen] and issued a fiat: I AM, and all that ever was or ever will be came into being. . . was created.
Some scientists have tried to overcome this hurdle by proposing
multiple universes and 'string theory'. As thought provoking as this
may be, it gets us no closer to conceiving of 'the beginning' or
'before the beginning'. Science cannot divine First Cause.
The Five Senses
[See top of page]
Ask five witnesses to an automobile accident to describe what they saw
and you usually end up with five different scenarios. Admittedly they
will be closely similar, and an astute investigator will likely derive
some conclusions from the evidence given that provides a fairly
accurate description of what actually happened.
The problem with the five senses is that they are flawed, and they are
flawed because of the influence of Babel. The human mind conceptualizes
all perceptions by way of symbols; with time human thought processes
are influenced by the values we each individually place upon those
particular symbols. Some aspects of an event will be distorted by
memory, perhaps forgotten, perhaps over-emphasized. Language, which is
the evidence of the use of abstract symbols in thinking processes, is
simply a barely adequate vehicle for conveying ideas: communicating
[Babel].
Take, for example, the cosmic event of July 4-5, 1054 AD. How do we
know that a supernova occurred at that time? We don't. All of the
historical records describing the event are 'reports', not
observations. They are ideas communicated over time to scribes who
wrote down what they heard11|.
The Crab Nebula
Is this the result of a
supernova that occurred
in 1054 of the Common
Era?
The most accurate of the records of the event are considered to be from
the Chinese: three documents dated to the Song Dynasty. Two give the
time of the event as the day jichou, but the third gives the date as yichou.
These would correspond in the modern calendar to July 4 and June 10
respectively. A scribal error? . . . or an error of reading?
Three Japanese documents believed to refer to the event agree with each
other as to timing, but all place the observation a month earlier than
the Chinese references.
An Arab account of the stellar event was discovered in 1978; it is
transcribed from a book compiled in the mid-thirteenth century quoting
a Nestorian Christian doctor, Ibn Butlan. He states that the 'star'
appeared in the year 446 (of the Muslim Calendar; 12 April, 1054 - 1
April, 1055 in modern calendar terms) 'during the sign of Gemini.' The
exact date is not specifically indicated.
European texts believed to refer to the supernova are quite muddled as
to date, time and length of the event, and are not specific to any area
of the sky. Some students of the European texts suspect that the Arab
account above is inaccurate and does not necessarily contradict the
European accounts.
Chaco Canyon, New Mexico - home of the Anasazi native population at
about the time of the stellar event - has some petroglyphs that could
refer to the supernova12|; the evidence is too non-specific to be used as scientific evidence. [See Scission Three - History: As We Know It]
Surely human perception is subject to ambiguous interpretation.
Empiricism
We stated Webster's definition of 'empirical' as 'originating in or based on observation or experience. . . . capable of being verified or disproved by observation or experiment.' Wikipedia says, 'A
central concept in modern science and the scientific method is that all
evidence must be empirical, or empirically based, that is, dependent on
evidence or consequences that are observable by the senses.'
The
instruments of science, in order to facilitate their mission of testing
and observation, are sophisticated extensions of our five senses. The
instruments are totally reliable to reproduce the data that our senses
would perceive if possible. Like our senses, however, they may have
unavoidable biases and blind spots. Wikipedia states the case thus: Senses
are limited, and are subject to errors in perception such as optical
illusions. Scientific instruments were developed to magnify human
powers of observation, such as weighing scales, clocks, telescopes,
microscopes, thermometers, cameras, and tape recorders, and also
translate into perceptible form events that are unobservable by human
senses, such as indicator dyes, voltmeters, spectrometers, infrared
cameras, oscilloscopes, interferometers, geiger counters, x-ray
machines, and radio receivers13|.
Discovery of the Higgs boson
on July 4, 2012, at the Large
Hadron Collider [This image
shows a computer-simulation
of data]
The further from simple observation the sensory instruments of science evolve, the more likely error is apt to creep in.
We stated previously that the distance to the star Betelguese could be
anywhere in the range of 180 to 1,300 light years from our solar system
[but see footnote #6]. Is that verifiable? Is it even useful? If one says
that they are between 5 and 105 years of age, the statement is accurate and
perhaps useful - unless one is applying for Social Security benefits.
The late Thomas S. Kuhn, an author, American historian and philosopher
of science, has promoted this idea that these methods are influenced by
prior beliefs and experiences14|.
He has offered the view that our comprehension of science can never
rely on full "objectivity"; we must account for subjective perspectives
as well.
This curious fact is evident in the recent controversy over anthropogenic [human-caused] climate change, also known as global warming. One body of scientists argues forcibly that there is a consensus
that their data confirms that there is anthropogenic climate change;
their critics say that there is contrary data, and claim that consensus is not science, it forms scientific theory much the same as the older consensus that the Earth was flat.
When scientists contest their various theories in the proper forum the
academic atmosphere is healthy. When scientists say that their
consensus amounts to settled fact and opposition should be oppressed,
science has polluted their own discipline. It turns out that the Earth
is not flat, nor does any scholar still argue that it could be.
This sort of entrenched arguments leads us to the principle of EVOLUTION.
—————————————————————————————————
[All web links acquired in Spring of 2014]
1| Robert Nola, Gürol Irzik; Philosophy, science, education and culture, pp. 199–201; Springer (2005).
2| ibid p. 208.
3| Giuliano Toraldo di Francia, The Investigation of the Physical World, Cambridge University
Press, p. 13; (1976)
4| Patricia Fara, Science: a four thousand year history, p. 408, Oxford University Press (2009). the
confirmation bias is defined as 'a tendency of people to favor information that confirms their beliefs
or hypotheses.'
5| http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Empirical
6| The website SolStation uses data from HIPPARCOS ("High precision parallax collecting satellite") and
measures the distance from our sun to Betelguese as around 430 +/- 100 light-years "(based on a
HIPPARCOS Plx= 7.63 +/- e_Plx= 1.64 mas)." James B. Kaler, Professor Emeritus of Astronomy of
the University of Illinois, says,
"Direct parallax measures from space, using the most modern results,
give 495 light years, whereas the
parallax using the star's natural radio emission gives 640 light years."
(http://stars.astro.illinois.edu/sow/betelgeuse.html)
7| L. P. Williams, 'The Supernova of 1054: A Medieval Mystery'; in H. Woolf (ed.), The Analytic Spirit:
Essays in the History of Science in Honor of Henry Guerlac, pp. 329-349; Cornell University Press,
Ithaca; 1981.
8| Joseph Justus Scaliger, Opus novum de emendatione temporum ("New Work on the Emendation of
Time"); Mamert Patisson, Paris; 1583.
9| Frank Moore Cross, Canaanite Myth and Hebrew Epic: Essays in the History of the Religion of Israel,
Harvard University Press (1997)
10| Joseph E.Lemaître, Un univers homogène de masse constante et de rayon croissant rendant compte
de la vitesse radiale des nébuleuses extragalactiques (Translated in: "A Homogeneous Universe of
Constant Mass and Growing Radius Accounting for the Radial Velocity of Extra-galactic Nebulae".
Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society 91: 483–490; 1931. The term 'Big Bang' was
fashioned by renowned British astronomer Sir Fred Hoyle in a radio broadcast in 1950.
11| G.W. Collins II, W.P. Claspy and J.C. Martin, A Reinterpretation of Historical References to the
Supernova of A.D. 1054; Publications of the Astronomical Society of the Pacific, Vol. 111, No. 761,
pp. 871-880; July, 1999. There are a number of Chinese records of the event; 1/ The Wenxian Tongkao,
compiled by Ma Duanlin in 1280, was translated by Édouard Biot in 1843; 2/ the Xu Zizhi Tongjian
Changbian, re-written 40 years or so later by Li Tao (1114–1183); 3/ The Song Huiyao, a traditional
form of history book in China, a portion of which was preserved in the Yongle Encyclopedia, and re-
published as the Song Huiyao Jigao, 1936 edition; and more. The main Japanese text is the
Meigetsuki, a report of an historical record by poet and author Fujiwara no Teika (1162–1241) in his
diary, apparently based on original Japanese documents. Arab and European sources appear less
dependable and less precise.
12| Dan Greening, http://www.astronomy.pomona.edu/archeo/outside/chaco/nebula.html
13| The source for this widely quoted sentence is Wikipedia's page on 'Observation' - Observation in
science: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Observation; no further source is given.
14| Thomas Samuel Khun, The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, University of Chicago Press (1970).
