“Then the Lord God formed man of dust from the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living being” (Gen. 2:7). Physical science has successfully developed paradigms to study nonliving “dust.” However, can science make the “breath” of God part of its subject matter? Is the concept of life so elusive that it becomes scientifically indefinable? Perhaps the inability of nonliving matter to detect and identify life as well as consciousness indicates that only life itself can “detect” and know life. Similarly, only self can “detect” and know self. Consciousness presupposes
          rationality, rationality presupposes life, and life presupposes God. Human rationality and consciousness are used to know nature and God, yet paradoxically humans
          may be unable to formulate a scientific theory either of life or of self

Alexanian, Moorad

English

PhilPapers

does not explain why in 4:1a, when Adam fathered Cain,the article is used with his name, but not in 4:25, when thesame Adam fathered Seth. Nor does he say why 5:1–5omits the article consistently (5 times) for the same Adamwith whom Genesis 2–4 is dealing. From Genesis 6 on-ward, “man” cannot denote Adam any more, yet in virtu-ally every case in the rest of Genesis we read ha’adam,the same form used for Adam in Genesis 2–4.Nelson claims that the transition from singular toplural in Gen. 1:27, “in the image of God he created him;male and female he created them,” is explained by thestory of the creation of Eve in 2:21–23, implying thattherefore in 1:27, “him” refers to Adam and “them” toAdam and Eve. This is not compelling. It looks like cir-cular reasoning. Starting with a belief that Adam wasthe first man, he concludes that 1:26–27 must refer toAdam, and from this, he concludes that “male and femalehe created them” in 1:27 must refer to Adam and Eve.Similarly, some translations of 1:27 incorrectly talk ofa man and a woman, whereas “male and female” aregeneric terms. So “them” can be the same collective entityas “him,” which is plural in essence.A given form of an expression is no guarantee thatit always designates the same entity. The context hasto be considered within the sentence, the paragraph,the book, the whole Bible, ancient culture, and languageflexibility.One crucial case of context sensitivity is the questionof the extent of the geographical frame. Gen. 1:1–2:4a isa creation story, referring to the entire universe, the Earth,and life as a whole. On the other hand, 2:4b–4:16 dealswith the history of God’s personal dealing with Adamand his family.3 This second section of Genesis is clearlycentered in southern Mesopotamia, the land of Sumerof the fifth millennium BC, as evidenced by the four riversof 2:10–14.4Between Gen. 2:4b and 12:3, there is no obvious breakin the narrative, the geographical context graduallywidening toward the northwest, before Abraham goesto Canaan. Nothing in this long story deals with thewhole Earth. In particular, this applies to Noah’s flood,its farthest northwestern reach being near Cizre on theupper Tigris, at the edge of the low hill country partof Urartu (Ararat).5Notes1P.G. Nelson, “Adam and Eve,” Perspectives on Science and ChristianFaith [PSCF] 60, no. 1 (2008): 71.2P. Rüst, “Early Humans, Adam, and Inspiration,” PSCF 59, no. 2(2007): 182–93.3Gen. 2:4 constitutes a symmetric bridge linking the two parts in amanner indicating a temporal succession, rather than anexpansion; cf. A. Held and P. Rüst, “Genesis Reconsidered,” PSCF51, no. 4 (1999): 231–43.4C.A. Hill, “The Garden of Eden: A Modern Landscape,” PSCF 52,no. 1 (2000): 31–46.5C.A. Hill, “The Noachian Flood: Universal or Local?”PSCF 54, no. 3(2002): 170–83.Peter RüstASA FellowCH-3148 LanzenhäusernSwitzerlandE-mail: paraske@aneste.chDoes the Bible Really “Declare” theEarth Young?In the recent response (PSCF 60, no. 1 [2008]: 35) to theessay review of Randy Isaac on Radioisotopes and theAge of the Earth, Larry Vardiman, a physicist at the Insti-tute for Creation Research and a member of the RATEgroup, said, “... the apparent conflict between the billionsof years of earth history commonly espoused by conven-tional science and the thousands of years declared byScripture seems to be resolvable.” This sentence raisesa question: Does the Bible really declare the earth young?Unfortunately, I did not find any biblical sentence thatdeclares the earth young or the earth old. The Bibles thatthe RATE Group used would be the same as others.I believe, therefore, that the RATE Group should correctthe phrase “declared by Scripture” with “declared byyoung-earth creationists” in the sentence. There can bemany interpretations for a single declaration of the Bible.Of course, the young-earth argument is just an interpre-tation. An interpretation should not be confused withthe biblical declaration.Paul S. YangDirector, Vancouver Institute for Evangelical Worldviewand Worldview Studies Program of ACTS SeminariesTrinity Western University7600 Glover RoadLangley, BC V2Y 1Y1, Canadashyang@twu.caCan Science Make the “Breath” of GodPart of Its Subject Matter?Graeme Finlay (PSCF 60, no. 2 [2008]: 103–14) reflects onhow the randomness of natural processes achieves God’screative purpose. Finlay indicates:To the Christian it is axiomatic that each one of usis a created being (Ps. 139). Scientifically, we are theproduct of random genetic process. Theologically,we are the outcome of loving divine purpose.Molecular randomness (in scientific terms) andcreatedness (in theological terms) inevitably gohand-in-hand.A human being is a physical/nonphysical/supernaturalentity, which is quite consistent with the Christian notionof humans as body/mind/spirit (Matt. 6:22, Rom. 12:2,1 Cor. 2:11). Scientific study of the human genome cannotaccess the nonphysical in humans. The notions of life,consciousness, and rationality lie at the foundation ofthe humanity of humankind, but cannot be reduced tothe purely physical. The latter somewhat contradicts theassertion that “Genetic mechanism in all its happenstancehas produced the genetic basis of humanness.”Consciousness is a moment-by-moment awarenessof our temporal existence and surroundings. Humanknowledge has access only to snapshots and flashbacksof reality. God is the being forever conscious and thuseternal that does not exist in time. God has no historyand so he experiences the whole of reality as an eternal“Now.”1 God is the supernatural or divine being that isomniscient and sustains His creation (Heb. 1:3). It is notVolume 60, Number 3, September 2008 207Lettersclear, however, how God’s action in spacetime can formpart of a strictly evolutionary description of humans.The Apostle Peter needed the Father in order to knowthe true nature of Jesus (Matt. 16:16–17). Perhaps thesupernatural in humans actually mediates between thenonphysical mind (knowledge of who Jesus is) and thephysical body (flesh and blood) and exercises the free willwe possess. Science does not deal with the nonphysicaland less so with the supernatural aspects of humans.Thus no development in evolutionary theory, qua scien-tific theory, can ever shed light on the true nature ofhumans, which can only be understood by knowingJesus the Christ.Verbs usually connote an action with temporalduration, which is not applicable to God. Certainly,God does not acquire knowledge as we do. He justknows. His knowledge is not temporal. However, for us,embedded in spacetime, our description of nature interms of deterministic or probabilistic laws will give usonly the physical aspect of the whole of reality. A com-plete understanding will include the supernatural,which is inaccessible to scientific inquiry no matter howscience is defined. Therefore, if evolutionary theory isunadulterated science, then it cannot account for the truenature of a human being.Of the different kinds of knowledge needed to studythe whole of reality, only metaphysics and theologyaddress the ontological question of existence whilescience deals only with the physical aspect of nature.2These issues are paramount when attempting to forgea solid integration of evolution with the Christian faith.Ascribing the genomic structure and temporal develop-ment in nature to “God’s faithful dealings with hiscreation” may be satisfying to a Christian, but contrivedto an unbeliever.“Then the Lord God formed man of dust from theground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life;and man became a living being” (Gen. 2:7). Physicalscience has successfully developed paradigms to studynonliving “dust.” However, can science make the“breath” of God part of its subject matter? Is the conceptof life so elusive that it becomes scientifically indefinable?Perhaps the inability of nonliving matter to detect andidentify life as well as consciousness indicates that onlylife itself can “detect” and know life. Similarly, only selfcan “detect” and know self. Consciousness presupposesrationality, rationality presupposes life, and life pre-supposes God. Human rationality and consciousness areused to know nature and God, yet paradoxically humansmay be unable to formulate a scientific theory either oflife or of self.Notes1C. S. Lewis, Mere Christianity (New York: Macmillan Paperbackedition, 1978), 145.2Moorad Alexanian, “Teaching, Propaganda, and the MiddleGround” (Letter), Physics Today 11 (2000): 80.Moorad AlexanianASA MemberDepartment of Physics and Physical OceanographyUniversity of North Carolina WilmingtonWilmington, NC 28403-5606alexanian@uncw.eduAI, Scripture, and HardwareI found two problems in Russell C. Bjork, “Artificial Intel-ligence and the Soul” (PSCF 60, no. 2 [2008]: 95–102).He cited a usual translation of Psalm 8:4–5. This is theonly time among the 2606 occurrences of élohim that theKing James version translates it as “angels.” This followsthe LXX [Septuagint] and is commonly adopted by othertranslations. A proper translation should indicate thathuman beings are a little below God, a thought thatbetter fits 1 Peter 1:12. Why should the greater yearnto look into the state of the lesser?From this it follows that strong AI expects the produc-tion of an image of the fallen image and likeness of God.Would this produce a mortal apparatus? An immortalone? Or would the possibility of exchanging parts andupdating programs give it improved and unendingexistence? There is also a vital difference between adevice that can perform a range of specific tasksmore rapidly and accurately than humans can, and onethat can self-consciously make moral decisions well orpoorly. Can the machine comprehensively improve onthe imitated person?As a bonus, one may ask whether digital hardware,the current option, can ever adequately emulate analogwetware, even if this is all there is to consciousness.David F. Siemens, Jr.ASA FellowCanyon Institute for Advanced Studiesdfsiemensjr@juno.com 208 Perspectives on Science and Christian FaithLettersBooks Available for PurchaseThe ASA has a limited inventory of the following books:God Did It, But How? ..................... $10Being a Christian in Science ......... $11Evidence of Purpose ..................... $20Please add $5.00 for postage/handling. We acceptpayment (US funds) by check or credit card (MC/Visa).Quantity discounts are available.E-mail Carol Aiken: carol@asa3.orgor mail your order to:ASAPO Box 668Ipswich, MA 01938-0668

Can Science Make the “Breath” of God Part of Its Subject Matter?

https://philpapers.org/archive/ALECSM-2.pdf

Can Science Make the “Breath” of God Part of Its Subject Matter?

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

PhilPapers