Adam and Christ are sitting on a fence…

You remember the oft repeated and incredibly annoying children’s rhyme of Pete and Repete? “Pete and Repete are sitting on a fence, Pete falls off, who is left?” “Repete!”  And thus it begins with no less annoyance than the song that never ends.  Yes, it goes on and on, my friend.  Well you know what else goes on and on?  The debate on whether Genesis is historical narrative or simply poetic.  I pose a question: Adam and Christ are sitting on a fence, Adam falls off, who is left?  The answer?  Nobody.  Removing the living breathing real life Adam from Genesis is effective in making Christ disappear or at the least makes Him nothing more than another bible story character.  I know the difficulty in people accepting my comment here but let me explain.  First, the reason most people feel the need to accept a poetic, non-literal translation of Genesis is because of its supposed incompatibilities with the Big Bang.   I find it odd that, of the two, Gods Word is the one that becomes less reliable among Bible believers.  Now, the Big Bang, despite what you may have heard, is still nothing more than a theory.  There is an open letter out to the scientific community stating that, “Giving support only to projects within the big bang framework undermines a fundamental element of the scientific method — the constant testing of theory against observation.”  This open letter has been published in New Scientist (Lerner, E., Bucking the big bang, New Scientist 182(2448)20, 22 May 2004) and is not just a random posting by anti Big Bang supporters.  Other statements from the letter include:

  • The big bang today relies on a growing number of hypothetical entities, things that we have never observed– inflation, dark matter and dark energy are the most prominent examples. Without them, there would be a fatal contradiction between the observations made by astronomers and the predictions of the big bang theory. In no other field of physics would this continual recourse to new hypothetical objects be accepted as a way of bridging the gap between theory and observation. It would, at the least, raise serious questions about the validity of the underlying theory.
  • An open exchange of ideas is lacking in most mainstream conferences. Whereas Richard Feynman could say that “science is the culture of doubt”, in cosmology today doubt and dissent are not tolerated, and young scientists learn to remain silent if they have something negative to say about the standard big bang model. Those who doubt the big bang fear that saying so will cost them their funding.
  • Today, virtually all financial and experimental resources in cosmology are devoted to big bang studies. Funding comes from only a few sources, and all the peer-review committees that control them are dominated by supporters of the big bang. As a result, the dominance of the big bang within the field has become self-sustaining, irrespective of the scientific validity of the theory.

Lets shift gears a bit to anomalies.  What is an anomaly?  One site defines it well when it says that anomalies are “alleged extraordinary events unexplained by currently accepted scientific theory.”  My natural question is this, how many anomalies does it take before the theory is scrapped?  How many events do you need, that can’t be explained by a currently accepted theory, in order to question the validity of the theory?   I have to agree with the following statement from Skeptical Investigations when they say, “[Thus], anomalies are viewed not as nuisances but as welcome discoveries that may lead to the expansion of our scientific understanding.”  I have a hard time believing that hardcore Big Bang supporters hold to the idea that anomalies are welcome discoveries.

My point in all this is simple, let the Big Bang be open to question!  Don’t ignore the anomalies, of which there are many, and keep promoting the Big Bang as fact.  Also, in the religious community, ESPECIALLY those of which adhere to true Biblical interpretation, do not be bullied into thinking you have to adopt a Hugh Ross view of creation!  Don’t feel pressured by the “majority” of the scientific community to subscribe to a theory that does not match with a true reading of Genesis.  The argument that you would be ignoring scientific proof is false and comes from a crowd of credulous supporters.  If the Big Bang theory was ever met with opposition and failed, was scrapped, and had a new theory brought in to replace it, what then would happen to such movements at Progressive Creation?  What would people like Hugh Ross, that promote the idea that the Bible actually defends the Big Bang, do with a creation model that would be interconnected with an invalidated theory?  You mean the Bible defends and even teaches a theory that is crap?

Back to the crux of this blog, if Genesis is to be read poetically as to avoid any incompatibilities with a literal historical narrative interpretation and the Big Bang theory, you will effectively reduce Christ to a nonexistence or at the least reduce Him to nothing more than another bible story character.  This is easily supported by Scripture in the genealogy of Christ as found in Luke.  You can trace Christ’s earthly lineage all the way back to Adam.  Christ is referred to as “the last Adam.”  There are 7 verses in the New Testament that make reference to Adam, 2 of which have direct ties to Genesis and 3 of which are connected directly with Christ.  Christ’s earthly existence is indissoluble with Adam’s.  On the fence of Genesis interpretation which so many straddle, when Adam falls off, nobody is left.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s