Wednesday, May 15, 2013

EVOLUTION AS CREATION MYTH



Below is an excerpt from Patrick Harpur’s The Philosophers' Secret Fire. I’m not as sceptical as he is about the evidence for evolution, though I think its mechanism is far from understood.  What particularly interests me is the way Harpur shows Evolutionists to be driven by pre-existing myths such as the Goddess and the Great Chain of Being.
 
PS I think the idea of competition as the driver of evolution merely mirrors the competitive capitalist ideology of our society. In other times we might have seen evolution as driven by co-operation, or maybe by elegance.

“A surprising number of people believe that humans are descended from spacemen who have landed on earth and, like the mysterious Nephilim in Genesis, ‘mated with the daughters of men’. We may smile at this myth but it is not especially disreputable. All traditional cultures believe that they are descended from gods, god-like humans such as the ancestors or divine animals – many of whom came from the sky.

Naturally we do not understand the clans who claim descent from a leopard or a bear because we think they believe in a literal biological descent, which they do not. It is westerners who take their myths of descent literally so that, when we ceased to believe that we were literally descended from Adam and Eve, who were created according to Archbishop Usher of Armagh in 4004BC, we were only too ready to believe we were descended from apes. Tribespeople would understand divine ape-ancestors at once, but actual apes…  It would be their turn to smile. The last superior laugh is ours, of course, because unlike the na├»ve tribespeople and the barmy extraterrestrialists we have a scientific theory of descent: evolution.
                                 
In 1992 a science writer called Richard Milton published a book, The Facts of Life, which questioned the scientific validity of the theory of evolution. When I read a review of it by Richard Dawkins, describing the book as ‘loony’, ‘stupid’, ‘drivel’ and its author as someone who ‘needs psychiatric help’, I was naturally grateful to Dawkins for drawing my attention, through this closely reasoned critique, to a work I might otherwise have missed. Mr Milton turned out to be disconcertingly sane. He wrote his book as a concerned father who was nervous about his daughter being taught a theory as if it were Gospel truth.”

______________________________________________
Ad Break: I offer webcam astrology readings (£40 for 1 hour, £60 no time limit). Contact: Dharmaruci71(at)hotmail.com.
_______________________________


  
Harpur’s main reservation about evolution is the lack of intermediate species in the fossil record  and, in their eagerness to believe, the susceptibility of scientists to hoaxes such as Piltdown man.


He continues: “Why do evolutionists believe in evolution against all the evidence? Partly, I suppose, because there is no credible alternative story; mostly, because it is a powerful creation myth which demands to be implicitly believed. Structural analysis has already shown (earlier in the book) how myths which may look very different on the surface are in fact variants of the same myth. They are simply transformed by certain archetypal rules. This is true of myths of devolution and evolution.

Traditionally, creation myths are devolutionary. They describe how we are descended from gods or god-like ancestors, and our present state is fallen, a regression from the perfection of the past. We are inferior to our forebears. Our task is to recreate the conditions of Eden or Arcadia, the state of past harmony.

Only our western scientific myth is evolutionary. It describes how we have ascended from animals and our present state is advanced, a progress from the imperfection of the past. We are superior to our forebears. Our task is to create the conditions of the New Jerusalem or Utopia, the state of future harmony.

We notice that the two myths are, as so often, symmetrical but inverted. So, while the evolutionary myth claims that it is not a myth at all, but history, superseding all other myths, we see that really it is a variant of the devolutionary myth – an eccentric variant that wants to take itself literally.
Evolutionism places humans at the top of the tree, the position formerly occupied by the gods. It also endows us with god-like powers of reason etc. But it claims, too, that we are only animals, a product of mere biology. In other words, we have ‘ascended’ to become the ‘divine animals’ from which so many traditional cultures claim descent.

The place where ‘transmutation of species’ really occurs is not in Nature but in myth. Species of gods and daimons are always appearing to humans in animal form. Witches and shamans take on the shapes of animals and certain animals shed their skins to assume human form. The interchanging of humans and animals is a metaphor for the reciprocal relationship between this world and the Otherworld, the way each flows into the other. In the old days we believed in werewolves; African tribes still routinely believe in were-leopards or were-crocodiles. Nowadays we believe in were-apes. Myth has no objection to the changing of an ape into a man, or vice-versa; but only evolutionists would dream of taking this literally; transmutation of species is a literalisation of daimonic shape-shifting.

Transitional species are abundant in myth, where we not only have were-animals but also centaurs, satyrs, fauns, mermaids, etc; but they are absent in fact. Evolution works imaginatively but not literally. The search for the magical were-ape, or ‘missing link’, which will transform the myth into history tends to follow the same sequence of events: a tooth or bone is found and hailed excitedly as evidence for the missing link. Time passes – and it is reluctantly re-classified as either man-like or ape-like.


The search for ‘missing links’ in the evolutionary chain can be traced back to the Scholastic doctrine – axiomatic for over a thousand years – that ‘Nature makes no leaps’…. But apart from this sort of philosophical precedent for ‘missing links’, it seems simply to be the case that the need for continuity exerts as archetypal a fascination over the imagination as the idea of shapeshifting. We always construct a series of links between ourselves and the gods (or whatever we conceive to be the ground of our being) such as the Neoplatonic emanations, the medieval Chain of Being or the Roman Catholic saints, angels and Blessed Virgin Mary.
 
But what, if not Adam and Eve, does the evolutionary chain link us to? The Darwinist answer, of course, is: to an ape-like ancestor in the first instance, and ultimately to protein molecules in the primeval ocean. The psychological answer is that it links us to a symmetrical but inverted version of the transcendent God it has done away with – it links us, that is, to an immanent goddess. Darwinists are not aware of her, but she is present in Darwin’s vision of Nature as a cruel power, which his successors inherited. They still see Nature today in an unwittingly Romantic light as the irrepressible source of all forms of life… When Jacques Monod wrote of the “inexhaustible resources of the well of chance’, he was using a metaphor which traditionally belongs to the creatrix in her manifestation as the Soul of the World.

The goddess is particularly present in any ideology which emphasises growth and development. As James Hillman has noticed, ‘the evolutional terms of Darwinian biology… resonate with the person of the mother archetype.’

10 comments:

Sommnium said...

I am always disappointed when I see that initially good idea is destroyed by silly arguments. I agree that a lot of scientific ideas have roots in archetypal ideals: like heliocentric model of Copernicus, or modern preformationism in the form of gene-centric view.
However, this analysis relies not on evolutionary theory itself, but on popular understanding of evolutionary theory and that’s a huge difference. Here are several claims:

1. “we were descended from apes” WRONG. According to evolutionary theory, we and apes share common ancestor;

2. “we have ascended from animals and our present state is advanced, a progress from the imperfection of the past” WRONG. Modern evolutionary theory is about adaptation to specific local conditions, and not about hierarchical ladder of less and more advanced living forms (in fact, Lamarck was proponent of such hierarchy). Only recently there are some papers that suggests that increase in complexity is inevitable evolutionary trend, and that’s all about hierarchies within scientific evolutionary theory;

3. “Evolutionism places humans at the top of the tree” WRONG. I explained it in the previous point, but also you can analyze any serious phylogenetic tree, and try to find human, and see if it have any special place in it.


And you are right about connection between evolution and capitalist ideology. In fact Darwin's idea of competition was inspired by work of Thomas Malthus on economic growth.

Magic Dragon said...

Great post! So very interesting. Science and there are many behind our evolution myth; biology, antropology, etc. are not as "objective" as we like to believe. The facts need interpretation (as do numbers in math, the most "exact" of science). The "answer" we get from the facts has more to do with the interpretation we make of them. Science is out Western myth. Nothing wrong with it, as long as we don't take it literally.
SOme say Darwin is behind th competitive drive behind
evolution and sucess. Really? while Darwin can interpret that way, it is not totally so. In 1871 in his book The Descent of Man argued that the human species had succeeded because of traits like sharing and compassion. “Those communities,” he wrote, “which included the greatest number of the most sympathetic members would flourish best, and rear the greatest number of offspring.”

Michael Tomasello (American psychologist and co-director of the Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology in Leipzig) Sustains that it is co-operation and not competiton that is behind the success of human evolution.

So often it is not science or the myth that has a peculiar view, but the interpretation we make of them, and this is often influenced or even determined by group interest and agendas.

Cheers,
Nic

zuma said...

Did Pope Benedict XVI provide any view of his support of evolutionary theory?

The following is the extract of the speech from Pope Benedict XVI when he had his dialogue with Fr Alberto at the church of St Justin Martyr on 24th July 2007:

I think you have just given us a precise description of a life in which God does not figure. At first sight, it seems as if we do not need God or indeed, that without God we would be freer and the world would be grander. But after a certain time, we see in our young people what happens when God disappears. As Nietzsche said: "The great light has been extinguished, the sun has been put out". Life is then a chance event. It becomes a thing that I must seek to do the best I can with and use life as though it were a thing that serves my own immediate, tangible and achievable happiness. But the big problem is that were God not to exist and were he not also the Creator of my life, life would actually be a mere cog in evolution, nothing more; it would have no meaning in itself. Instead, I must seek to give meaning to this component of being. Currently, I see in Germany, but also in the United States, a somewhat fierce debate raging between so-called "creationism" and evolutionism, presented as though they were mutually exclusive alternatives: THOSE WHO BELIEVE IN THE CREATOR WOULD NOT BE ABLE TO CONCEIVE OF EVOLUTION, and THOSE WHO INSTEAD SUPPORT EVOLUTION WOULD HAVE TO EXCLUDE GOD. This antithesis is absurd because, on the one hand, there are so many scientific proofs in favour of evolution which appears to be a reality we can see and which enriches our knowledge of life and being as such. But on the other, THE DOCTRINE OF EVOLUTION DOES NOT ANSWER EVERY QUERY, especially the great philosophical question: WHERE DOES EVERYTHING COME FROM? And how did everything start which ultimately led to man? I believe this is of the utmost importance. This is what I wanted to say in my lecture at Regensburg: that reason should be more open, that it should indeed perceive these facts but also realize that THEY ARE NOT ENOUGH TO EXPLAIN ALL OF REALITY. THEY ARE INSUFFICIENT. Our reason is broader and can also see that our reason is not basically something irrational, a product of irrationality, but that reason, creative reason, precedes everything and we are truly the reflection of creative reason. We were thought of and desired; thus, there is an idea that preceded me, a feeling that preceded me, that I must discover, that I must follow, because it will at last give meaning to my life. This seems to me to be the first point: to discover that my being is truly reasonable, it was thought of, it has meaning. And my important mission is to discover this meaning, to live it and thereby contribute a new element to the great cosmic harmony conceived of by the Creator. If this is true, then difficulties also become moments of growth, of the process and progress of my very being, which has meaning from conception until the very last moment of life. We can get to know this reality of meaning that precedes all of us, we can also rediscover the meaning of pain and suffering; there is of course one form of suffering that we must avoid and must distance from the world: all the pointless suffering caused by dictatorships and erroneous systems, by hatred and by violence. ...

zuma said...

Comments upon the speech of Pope Benedict XVI as listed above and observe carefully those words that are placed in capital letters:

Despite Pope Benedict XVI did mention above that there are too many scientific proofs in favour of evolution which appears to be a reality, he did not state clearly of his stand towards evolutionary theory since nothing is mentioned whether he had found favourably towards this theory.

As the phrase, those who believe in the creator would not be able to conceive of evolution, is mentioned in his speech above, it implies that those people that uphold the truth that God should be the Creator of this world could not be able to identify whether there could be any link between the doctrine of evolution and Creator. This is by virtue of those people that support creationism would perceive that God was the One that directly created everything instead of being treated as everything would be the work of evolution and that He just stood aside just to assist without directly creating it.

As the phrase, those who instead support evolution would have to exclude God, is mentioned above, it implies that those people that support evolutionary theory would turn up to exclude God in their process of formation of everything. This is certainly true in the sense that those people that support evolutionary theory would turn up to support that God has to be excluded to be direct creation of this world since their belief is based on the assumption that He only stood aside and to assist in the formation of the world without directly creating it. If God would turn up not to be directly creating everything, how could he then call Him to be the Creator as mentioned in his speech above? As Benedict XVI called God to be the Creator, He should have supported that God was the One that had created everything directly.

Despite Pope Benedict XIV mentioned that there are many scientific proofs for evolution, he did not mention that all these evidences could be useful to prove the creation of this world. As the phrase, the doctrine of evolution does not answer every query, is mentioned in his speech above, it implies that he did not support evolutionary theory could be a useful source to answer every query that would bring towards it. As the phrase, where does everything come from?, is mentioned in his speech above with the phrase, the doctrine of evolution does not answer every query, it implies that the doctrine of evolution could not provide a suitable reason how everything would come about, such as, Was God the One that directly created this world? How would God create this world? As the phrase, they are not enough to explain all of reality they are insufficient, is mentioned in his speech above, it gives an absolute conclusion that the doctrine of evolution should not be treated as reliable and sufficient source to prove how everything would come about. As the phrase, they are insufficient, is mentioned in his speech above pertaining to the doctrine of evolution, it implies that Paul Benedict XIV did not intend Christians to treat evolutionary theory to be useful source to tackle answer as where everything comes about or how everything could be formed in the beginning.

Nevertheless, Pope Benedict XIV did not mention that evolutionary theory could be useful to support how everything could be formed in the beginning, such as, How could human beings be formed? Was God directly created them? This is by virtue of evolutionary theory could not provide sufficient source to prove it.

zuma said...

Did Pope John Paul II really support evolutionary theory when he delivered his message to the general audience on 29th January 1986 that the theory of natural evolution was not in principle opposed to the truth about the creation of the visible world as presented in the Book of Genesis?

The following is the extract from the third paragraph of his dialogue:

The first account, later in time of composition, is more systematic and theological. It uses the term Elohim to designate God. IT DISTRIBUTES THE WORK OF CREATION OVER A SERIES OF SIX DAYS. Scholars have concluded that this text had its origin in the priestly and cultic circles, since THE SEVENTH DAY IS PRESENTED AS THE DAY ON WHICH GOD RESTS. It proposes to man the worker the example of God the Creator. The author of the first chapter of GENESIS wished to CONFIRM the teaching contained in the Decalogue by inculcating the obligation TO KEEP HOLY THE SEVENTH DAY.

Comment upon the speech of Pope John Paul II as listed above and observe those letters that are placed in capital letters. As the phrase, it distributes the work of creation over a series of six days, it gives an undisputable truth that he supported that God’s creation fell within six days. Did he refer a day of the creation as mentioned in Genesis 1 to be a thousand years? No, he did not refer it to more than a day. As the phrase, seventh day is presented as the day on which God rests, is mentioned in his speech above with the phrase, to keep holy the seventh day, it implies that he referred a day to be literally a day instead of more than that. Unless he did not relate the Sabbath day in which the Jews have to keep holy to the seventh day as God rested, a day could represent a thousand years or more. This is by virtue of Sabbath day that the Jews have to observe falls exactly a day instead of more. As he relates Sabbath day to be the seventh day in which God rested, it implies that he did not support that a day in Genesis could be interpreted as a thousand years or more.

The following is the extract from the 8th paragraph of the speech of Pope John Paul II:
‘Together with all that Sacred Scripture says in different places about the work of creation and about God the Creator, this description enables us to set out certain elements in relief:
1) GOD CREATED THE WORLD BY HIMSELF. The creative power is not transmissible├ó€”incommunicabilis.
2) GOD FREELY CREATED THE WORLD, WITHOUT ANY EXTERIOR COMPULSION or compulsion or interior obligation. He could create or not create; he could create this world or another one.
3) THE WORLD WAS CREATED IN TIME, therefore, IT IS NOT ETERNAL. It has a beginning in time.
4) THE WORLD CREATED BY GOD is CONSTANTLY MAINTAINED IN EXISTENCE by the Creator. This "maintenance" is, in a certain sense, a continual creation (conservatio est continua creatio).’

Comment upon the speech of Pope John Paul II as listed above. As the phrase, God created the world by himself, is mentioned in his speech above, he absolutely supported that this world was God’s creation undoubtedly. As the phrase, God created the world by himself, is mentioned above, it gives also a significant truth that he did not support that God did not create the world directly but to stand aside to assist the evolution of the world. Instead, the creation of the world was the master piece of direct construction from God.

As the phrase, the world was created in time, is mentioned in his speech above, he supported that the world was created in time or immediately. Or in other words, he did not support that this world would take many years to be formed.

As the phrase, it is not eternal, is mentioned in his speech above in the same line with the phrase, the world was created in time, it implies that he did not support God’s creation was eternal and yet evolutionary theory supports eternal evolution.

zuma said...

The phrase, the world created by God is constantly maintained in existence by the Creator, as mentioned in his speech above implies that God maintain the existence of His creation. It could be by means of protecting the world and to prevent it to be worse off or whatever as a result of natural disaster or whatever.

Pope John Paul II had mentioned the same in his following speech to emphasize that God was undoubtedly to be the One that directly created the world. He did not stand aside to assist the world to form but to involve personally so as to create it by Himself:

‘For almost two thousand years the Church has consistently professed and proclaimed the truth that THE CREATION OF THE VISIBLE AND INVISIBLE WORLD IS THE WORK OF GOD. It has done this in continuity with the faith professed and proclaimed by Israel, the People of God of the old covenant. The Church explains and thoroughly examines this truth by making use of the philosophy of being, and she defends it from the distortions that arise from time to time in the history of human thought. In the First Vatican Council, in reply to the trends of the pantheistic and materialistic thought of the time, THE CHURCH’S MAGISTERIUM HAS CONFIRMED with particular solemnity AND FORCE THE TRUTH THAT THE CREATION OF THE WORLD IS THE WORK OF GOD. Those same tendencies are present also in our century in certain developments of the exact sciences and of the atheistic ideologies.’

The same is also mentioned below that God was the One that created the world:
‘According to the "canons" added to this doctrinal text, the First Vatican Council confirmed the following truths:
1) The one, true GOD IS CREATOR AND LORD"OF VISIBLE AND INVISIBLE THINGS" (DS 3021).
2) It is contrary to faith to affirm that only matter exists (materialism) (DS 3022).
3) It is contrary to faith to assert that God is essentially identified with the world (pantheism) (DS 3023).
4) IT IS CONTRARY TO FAITH to maintain that creatures, even spiritual ones, are an emanation of the divine substance, or TO AFFIRM THAT THE DIVINE BEING BY its manifestation or EVOLUTION BECOMES EVERYTHING (DS 3024).
5) ALSO CONTRARY TO FAITH is the idea THAT GOD IS the universal or INDEFINITE BEING which in BECOMING DETERMINATE constitutes universe divided into genera, species and individuals (DS 3024).
6) It is likewise contrary to faith to deny that the world and all things contained in it, whether spiritual or material, in their entire substance have been created by God out of nothing (DS 3025).’
Comment upon the speech of Pope Paul II as listed above. As the phrase, It is contrary to faith…to affirm that the divine being by…evolution becomes everything, is mentioned above, it implies that he opposed the faith that God (the divine being) would use evolution as a source to cause everything to be in existence.

As the phrase, God is the universal or indefinite being, is mentioned in his speech above with the phrase, becoming determinate, it implies that God was not created from something else.

Nevertheless, Pope Paul II did not support that God used evolution to be the source that caused everything into existence.

If he did not support that evolution was the source that caused everything into existence, why should he mention that the theory of natural evolution was not in principle opposed to the truth about the creation of the visible world as presented in the Book of Genesis?

It could be that:

When he mentioned that evolutionary theory was not in principle opposed to the truth about the creation of the visible world as presented in the Book of Genesis, it could mean that he supported that evolutionary theory and Genesis have the principle and that is to find out how this universe was formed; or to find out how animals were created; or to find out how plants were created; or etc. However, he did not support that the formation of everything was not the direct work of God but through evolution.

Or

He could have made a mistake in his statement.

Or

He spoke it ignorantly.

zuma musa said...

Is gap theory or the so-called, Lucifer’s flood, justifiable from scriptural point of view? Was there any living creature during or prior to the event in Genesis 1:2?

The gap theory or the so-called, Lucifer’s flood, that could be located in the website, http://www.gotquestions.org/Lucifers-flood.html , states that it supports another human races without souls that have no connection with any genetic mutation with the plants, animals and human living today could have existed during or prior to the event in Genesis 1:2. At that time, Satan was a ruler of the earth and sin entered into the universe as a result of its rebellion that caused God to execute His judgment with pre-flood as mentioned in Genesis 1:2.

Genesis 1:2 And the earth was without form, and void; and DARKNESS [was] upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.

The word, darkness, in Genesis 1:2 rejects the possibility of any light on this earth. As long as there was sunlight, the entire earth at that time should not be in darkness. As the earth was in darkness, the sun was not created at that time.

As we know plants needed sunlight to perform photosynthesis. Without sunlight, carbon dioxide could not be able to divert to oxygen through photosynthesis. Without sunlight, all the oxygen on this earth would be diverted to carbon dioxide due to the respiration of all living creatures even if oxygen would have existed in Genesis 1:2. How could there be any animals, especially another human race, to be able to survive in Genesis 1:2 at the absence of sunlight since they needed oxygen to breathe in? How could animals be able to evolve from one to another at the absence of sunlight for a prolonged period, such as, million years, due to oxygen would entirely be consumed without a chance to be diverted to oxygen at the absence of sunlight? Thus, it is impossible to have another human race to have existed in Genesis 1:2. As it is impossible to have another human race to have existed in Genesis 1:2, how could it be that Genesis 1:2 was treated to be God’s judgment in bringing flood?

zuma musa said...

Big Bang Theory contradicts the teaching of the scripture.

The following are the extracts from the website, http://www.space.com/52-the-expanding-universe-from-the-big-bang-to-today.html :

‘About 400 million years after the Big Bang, the universe began to emerge from the cosmic dark ages during the epoch of reionization. During this time, which lasted more than a half-billion years, clumps of gas collapsed enough to form the first stars and galaxies, whose energetic ultraviolet light ionized and destroyed most of the neutral hydrogen.
Although the expansion of the universe gradually slowed down as the matter in the universe pulled on itself via gravity, about 5 or 6 billion years after the Big Bang, a mysterious force now called dark energy began speeding up the expansion of the universe again, a phenomenon that continues today.
A little after 9 billion years after the Big Bang, our solar system was born.’

My comment: The stars were formed about 400 million years after the Big Bang and yet our earth was formed a little after 9 billion years after the Big Bang.

Genesis 1:2, “And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.”

As the phrase, darkness was upon the face of the deep, is mentioned in Genesis 1:2, it implies that there was no light on earth. If stars were created at that time, starlight would still be visible at that time especially the sea water would reflect the starlight from the sky.

The following is the extract from the website, http://helios.gsfc.nasa.gov/qa_star.html, that states that stars do give off light:

‘Stars do give off light, that's why we can see them far away. The Sun, which is just an ordinary star, gives off the light that allows life to exist on Earth. Stars give off light the same way the filament in a light bulb does. Anything that is hot will glow. Cool stars glow red, stars like the Sun glow yellow, and really hot stars glow white or even blue-white.’

As stars could give off light by themselves and yet the earth was filled with water initially as mentioned in Genesis 1:2, the sea water would reflect the starlight and would cause the earth no longer to be in darkness if stars would be assumed to be created prior to the formation of the earth. The word, darkness, in Genesis 1:2, implies the absence of light especially the starlight in the sea that reflects the light from stars in the sky. As the scripture mentions with the word, darkness, there is no reason to assume that stars could exist in Genesis 1:2 at the presence of the earth or else the sea water would not be in darkness instead, there should be many spots of starlight. Or in other words, the scripture places the stars’ creation to be in Genesis 1:16 after the creation of the earth, Genesis 1:2, should be considered in sequential order since the stars should be created after the formation of the earth or else the earth would not be in darkness as mentioned in Genesis 1:2 since it would reflect the starlight. However, the Big Bang Theory supports the reverse and that is stars should be formed prior to the formation of the earth.

zuma musa said...

Both Big Bang Theory and Evolutionary Theory support that this entire universe would take billion years to be formed and yet the scripture supports a short while.


What did the scripture describe about the timeframe of God’s creation?

Psalms 33:6 By the word of the LORD were the heavens made; and all the host of them by the breath of his mouth. (King James Version)
Psalms 33:7 He gathereth the waters of the sea together as an heap: he layeth up the depth in storehouses.
Psalms 33:8 Let all the earth fear the LORD: let all the inhabitants of the world stand in awe of him.
Psalms 33:9 For he spake, and it was done; he commanded, and it stood fast.

The phrase, By the word of the LORD were the heavens made, as mentioned above implies that the heavens were created at the time of His speech. The phrase, For he spake and it was done, in Psalms 33:9 implies that the creation of heaven was speedy so much so that the heaven was created at the time of His speech.

Let’s link up Psalm 33:6 and 33:9 with Genesis 1:1, it would come to the conclusion that God should have created the heaven and the earth speedily in Genesis 1:1 since, at His speech, the heaven and the earth stood fast and they were created in the beginning of the first day.

Genesis 1:1 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.

Big Bang Theory supports the heavens have not been finished in its evolution since they support that they are still in construction currently that have led to current view of speedily expansion of this universe. Or in other words, Big Bang Theory supports the unceasing generation of new planets as well as the extension of the universe. The scripture supports otherwise since the phrase, For he spake and it was done, is mentioned in Psalms 33:9. As the phrase, For he spake and it was done, is mentioned in Psalms 33:9, it implies that God has finished His creation of the heavens at the time of His speech. Unless Psalms 33:9 mentions with the phrase, For he spake and it was on construction or on evolution, He had not finished His creation of heavens and that would have led to the current expansion of the universe as a result of His continuous work in construction of the heavens by expansion and forming more new planets. Nevertheless, the scripture supports that God has finished His creation of the heavens at the time of His speech.

The phrase, all the host of them by the breath of his mouth, in Psalms 33:6 implies whatever things that were in this heaven were created by His spoken words. The phrase, For he spake and it was done, in Psalms 33:9 refers the same that all the host of them, such as, stars and living creatures, were created instantaneously at the time of His speech.

Genesis 1:3 And God said, Let there be light: and there was light. When Genesis 1:3 has been read with Psalms 33:9, it would turn up to be the light stood fast on the first day.

When Genesis 1:6 has been read with Psalms 33:7 and Psalms 33:9, it would turn up to be that the division of water, such as, ocean or clouds or whatever, was created speedily at the time of His speech and this fell on the second day.

Genesis 1:6 And God said, Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters.

When Genesis 1:9 has been read with Psalms 33:9, it would turn up to be that the land appeared on earth speedily after His speech on the third day.

Genesis 1:9 And God said, Let the waters under the heaven be gathered together unto one place, and let the dry land appear: and it was so.

When Genesis 1:11 has been read with Psalms 33:9, it would turn up to be that all the plants were created instantaneously at the time when God has finished His speech on day three.

Genesis 1:11 And God said, Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb yielding seed, and the fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind, whose seed is in itself, upon the earth: and it was so.

zuma musa said...

The instantaneous creation of all living things should apply the same throughout Genesis 1 since the phrase, all the host of them by the breath of his mouth, is mentioned in Psalms 33:6. Unless Psalms 33:9 mentions with the phrase, For he spake and it was in construction or evolution, He did not have the power to create things instantaneously at the time of His speech but would take ample time, i.e. million or billion years to accomplish His creation.

From the above explanations, it would come to conclusion that God had created the heavens and the earth within six days literally and they were done but Big Bang supports the heavens have not been finished their construction and that has led their assumption of the continuous expansion of the universe currently. If the heavens were not done in their creation, they need further construction work so as to expand. If the heavens were done in their creation in the beginning, current movement of galaxies away from the earth does not imply God has not finished His construction. Instead, it implies the movement of galaxies in which this universe could be created already in infinity.

Is God omnipotent?

Revelation 19:6 And I heard as it were the voice of a great multitude, and as the voice of many waters, and as the voice of mighty thunderings, saying, Alleluia: for the Lord God omnipotent reigneth.
Matthew 19:26 But Jesus beheld them, and said unto them, With men this is impossible; but with God all things are possible.
Mark 10:27 And Jesus looking upon them saith, With men it is impossible, but not with God: for with God all things are possible.
Luke 1:37 For with God nothing shall be impossible.
Luke 18:27 And he said, The things which are impossible with men are possible with God.