Honors 2018: Bible Science and Humanities Exam 2

Walton describes the way we sometimes use "myth" and "mythology" to say what is being described is not true. How does Walton want to use the term? What jobs does a culture's mythology do for that culture?

"Mythology by its nature seeks to explain how the world works and how it came to be that way, and therefore includes a culture's "theory of origins". We sometimes label certain literature as "myth" because we do not believe that the world works that way." The mythology as an explanation for natural phenomena is believed by the culture it belongs to while myth is the disbelief in the mythology of another culture essentially. Our mythology is represented by science Mythology has a negative connotation to us; like the question states, we use the term to indicate that something is not true. But really it just refers to a culture's worldview - specifically, how the world came about and how it works. The fact that America's mythology is that of science does not make it any less of a mythology. The bible talks about water above in gen 1:7, not offering authoritative scientific revelation. Disproving the waters above isn't an error in scripture Don't interpret texts with modern ideas, it compromises it.

What role does Barr believe symmetry will play in future unification theories in physics?

"Symmetries discovered in nature by modern physics are far more subtle and intricate than any that are encountered in ordinary experience or that were imagined in the past." Unification of symmetry seen in the case of flavor SU(3) symmetries of particles. First seemed to be hundreds of different hadron particles were really closely related. Ex. 8 particles in a proton's octet are merely different facets of 1 symmetric entity Einstein's theory of relativity is based upon symmetry... leads to unification of space and time (making up one 4-dimensional space-time manifold), electric and magnetic fields (Lorentz symmetries are different components of electromagnetic field), mass and energy (newtonian physics concepts, Einstein showed they were related with E=mc^2) Principle symmetries are at the heart of modern physics. Ex. all of the 4 basic forces of nature (gravity, electromagnetism, strong force, and the weak force) are based upon principles of symmetry. Modern theory of gravity= einstein's theory of general relativity, based on general coordinate invariance and local Lorentz theory Electromagnetism is based on gauge theory. Strong and weak forces based upon fundamental symmetries The presence of these forces in nature is due to symmetry Characteristics of forces controlled by symmetries Mathematical laws govern forces and determine symmetries Modern foundational physics isn't driven by the search of new matters and forces, but the new and more powerful principles of symmetry that are suspected to lie beneath surface of what's presently understood.

What are the supporting arguments in favor of the restoration view?** someone remind me to fix this

"The deep" has a negative connotation, and the Spirit of God hovers over the deep and protects against demonic forces. Genesis 1 and 2 are not the only passages of Scripture that refer to creation. Many other passages reference hostile forces. "Ancient Near Eastern people generally believed that a war of some sort preceded the creation of the world. These biblical passages appear to express this perspective but attribute the victory over hostile forces to Yahweh rather than to the pagan gods in whom other Near Eastern people believed." These are actually main arguments I made a mistake

How does Ruse respond to Plantinga's criticism that you can't settle a difficult issue like this by definition alone?

"We should not use the word science for anything outside the bounds of methodological naturalism" He talks about how Plantinga wants to use the term science to include the possibility of God with stating that clarification and Ruse thinks its ok just don't use the word science interchangeably with your own personal definition. **Essentially, Plantinga is missing the point of Ruse's original argument and assuming that he is attempting to give a strict definition that is all-encompassing. Ruse counters by saying that his original definition was just an overarching and general idea of what scientists have agreed on science to be.

What are the main biblical arguments in favor of the literary framework view?

("The discussion surrounding the seven days of creatIon was not meant to satisfy a quasi-scientific curiosity about the order of creatIon. Rather, it provided a literary framework within which the author could effectively express the Hebraic conviction that one God created the world by bringing order out of chaos. He was interested in thematic rather than chronological organization.") The structure of Genesis seems to support this thematic notion since the first verse (1:1) functions as a general introductory statement and the second verse (1:2) sets forth a problem that shows how God solved these problems and brought order out of chaos. The mirroring of the first three days and the next three days addresses problems like darkness, the deep, and the formless of the earth where God created space within which things could exits. The second set of three days addresses these voidness problem and God solves this problem by creating things to fill the spaces he created in the first three days Genesis 1 is thematically and logically organized and expresses how the Creator solves the problems he needs to solve in order to bring creation out of chaos. Therefore, we have every reason to suppose that the succession of days was not meant to refer to a chronological succession bur to a logical, thematic and literary succession day 7 acts as a capstone

How did symmetry lead to the discovery of the omega-minus particle?

(You don't need to know what isospin or hypercharge are btw. Just go with it.) A group of eight particles were graphed based on isospin and hypercharge. The dots on the graph formed an incomplete triangle, with the bottom dot missing (think bowling pins from a bird's eye view, with the pin closest to the bowler gone). To conform to SU(3) symmetry (just a specific type of symmetry), the missing dot needed to be drawn. The specific isospin and hypercharge that the drawn-in dot represented predicted what is known as the "omega-minus particle." This particle was discovered through experimentation soon after it was predicted. Without attention to symmetry, the particle would not have been predicted and thus may not have been discovered.

What objections to the restoration view are listed and how do defenders of it respond?

(restoration view: first two chapters of Genesis aren't the original creation story, but rather the restoration of God's original creation) Objection: Response This is not the traditional view(not enough representatives in the church): While the absence of precedent for a view should make us cautious, it cannot itself constitute a decisive objection (protestants and evangelicals look to the doctrine as the sole authority). Furthermore, no particular interpretation of the Bible's opening creation narrative can claim significant dominance in the church tradition This view is based on circumstantial evidence(seen as fanciful speculation/inferences): All interpretations of Scripture are based on inferences from other scripture passages and is the best way of harmonizing everything Scripture says about creation. This view is based on the distinction between "create" and "make"(these words are used interchangeably and the distinction that the restoration view makes is incorrect): When one author alters the terms throughout a single passage, it suggests that he is making a real distinction. When referring to only humans and animals(living beings) the term "create" was used exclusively to contrast with what God was forming/making which made Genesis 1 about reforming creation. This view is inconsistent with the goodness of creation(existence of evil spirits before and after the creation of the world-or recreation in this case when "In the beginning God pronounced his creation "good").: Each declaration of "good" creation was focused on the stages of restoration of God's creation which doesn't prohibit "evil" things from existing as they weren't part of the restoration process. This view is inconsistent with fossil evidence(fossils shouldn't be able to be found from the original creation if the earth was reduced to a formless void and all previous life to be lost): lol they said this objection didn't even work since almost all geologists and paleontologists- including young earth creationists-agree that the earth has been through one or more global catastrophes in the past(like a global flood or ice age) where fossils predate these catastrophes. Furthermore, no one knows what the earth looked like with the description of "formless void" and "darkness" which doesn't say if all things were destroyed.

What are the 5 non-concordist interpretations of this chapter? (quotes from p. 100)

1. Proclamation Day: "The days of Genesis 1 took place in God's throne room, wherein God proclaimed each step of creation." Earthly days and heavenly days are different. 2. Creation Poem: "The number and ordering of the 'days' of Genesis 1 are chosen for poetic and thematic reasons rather than historical reasons." It is not to be taken as a historical document. 3. Kingdom-Covenant Interpretations: The emphasis and message of the Genesis account of creation is God's relationship with humanity and nature. God's gift of dominion over the world to man resonates with the way Near East Kings would give land to their vassals. 4. Temple Interpretation: God establishes the earth as his temple. "The six days establish the function of each creature and do not refer to the formation of physical material." 5. Ancient Near Eastern Cosmology Interpretation: The Genesis creation story serves to emphasize a theological message, not a scientific message. The Ancient Near Eastern understanding of the world was primitive and inaccurate, and God's intention in inspiring the writing of Genesis was not to correct their science but to correct their theology. He did so by having the author go step by step through all the things that people believed were gods, stripping elements of nature of their god-status by claiming that God created them. He wanted to correct their theology, so he used a scientific paradigm that they believed and understood.

How many different elements are used in the human body, what distinguishes one element from another, and one isotope of an element from another, and how are the more complex elements made and by what natural processes, according to Barr's discussion on pp. 119-120?

25 of the naturally occurring elements are found in the human body and are necessary for its functioning. Every chemical element has its own kind of nucleus made up of a specific number of protons and some number of neutrons. The varying number of neutrons is what differentiates "isotopes" for an element. Barr discusses that people are essentially made from stardust, as one of the three main manufacturing places of elements was from the explosions from supernovas along with the fires of the Big Bang and the interiors of stars. Elements are made by first fusing smaller nuclei together to make their nucleus before "clothed with a cloud of electrons to make a complete atom". From these smaller nuclei fusing together to get bigger nuclei all the elements up to Uranium were made. The first few steps happened in the Big Bang while heavier elements required cooking inside of stars and supernovas.

In chapter 2, Walton says we tend to think of the cosmos as a great machine. What does Walton think is a better image to understand how ancient Near Easterners thought about the cosmos?

A company or kingdom. Employees don't care as much about the history of the company they work for, but rather in the corporate structure and what are each department's responsibilities as well as who reports to whom and who's in charge of certain tasks and operations. The other example is about going to the theatre and understanding that the role of the actors makes up the play rather than the construction of the stage since the storyline is what a person would ask to be filled in on if they were to miss part of the show, not the costume design or the hiring of the cast.

How does Ruse describe methodological naturalism? How does he defend the claim that it is not an atheistic approach?

A methodological naturalist assumes that the world runs according to unbroken law; that humans can understand the world in terms of this law; and that science involves just such understanding without any reference to extra or supernatural forces like God. Whether there are such forces or beings is another matter entirely and simply not addressed by methodological naturalism... although evolution is a natural consequence of methodological naturalism, given the facts of the world as they can be discovered, in no sense is the methodological naturalist thereby committed to the denial of God's existence. It is simply that the methodological naturalist insists that, inasmuch as one is doing science, one avoid all theological or other religious references. In particular, one denies God a role in the creation. Doesn't claim that God did not have a role in the creation, but simply that science, that is an enterprise formed through the practice of methodological naturalism, science has no place for talk of God. Ex. Just as, for instance, if one were to go to the doctor one would not expect any advice on political matters, so if one goes to a scientist one does not expect any advice on or reference to theological matters. The physician may indeed have very strong political views, which one may or may not share. But the politics are irrelevant to the medicine. Similarly, the scientist may or may not have very strong theological views, which ** when your lawyer is creating a prenup (in case things go wrong), you want them to assume that they are trash lol... worse case scenario. ** methodological naturalism allows science to remain religiously neutral and allows scientists to be from a variety of religions and still do science

Why is the very existence of matter a puzzle to physicists, and how does Barr argue that this is an anthropic coincidence as well?

According to Barr, the word "matter" can be used by physicists in a variety of ways. He uses it to mean the existence of quarks and leptons. The puzzling aspect of their existence is that "particle physics would be just as mathematically self-consistent" without them. Essentially, why do we need quarks and leptons? Barr argues that these particles are also anthropic coincidences because the universe would eventually be left with only electrically neutral particles. Although he concedes that life could be possible in these conditions, he asserts that it is "extremely implausible."

When, under what circumstances, and by whom, did the relationship between science and religion "turn nasty" according to Numbers? What were the deeper issues involved? What were some of the results?

According to Numbers, British scientists/philosophers led by Huxley and John Tyndall insisted that naturalistic science gave the only reliable knowledge of nature, humans, and society (around 1870). **Before this they had agreed to disagree; this was a direct attack on religion. In the words of historian Frank M. Turner, they sought to "expand the influence of scientific ideas for the purpose of secularizing society rather than for the goal of advancing science internally." (73) Tyndall went farther than removing the supernatural from science, his crowd wanted to replace religion with secular rationalism. This led to the linkage of science and secular thinking, pushing away even the idea of theism in science.

Why does Barr think it is an open question whether or not natural selection can satisfactorily explain the complexity of biology we see on earth?

At present, Barr doesn't believe there is enough evidence to settle the issue one way or another. There is evidence that supports the notion that all life on earth evolved from a common ancestor and natural selection plays a role in evolution. However, there's not sufficient evidence that proves that natural selection alone drives the entirety of evolution and there's been recent discoveries that limit the ability of natural selection to do so: There's not an infinite amount of time for evolution to occur(it's actually occuring about five thousand times faster than what was previously thought) The degree of complexity has to be accounted for, probably not in the minute changes that natural selection suggests(molecular machinery in a single plant or animal cell) The human brain evolved from an ape brain in 5 million years or less (seems doubtful) Barr thinks it's unscientific to go beyond the evidence, and a truly scientific person would keep an open mind about how evolution happened.

How would making the electromagnetic force stronger in different degrees affect the chances of life in the universe, according to Barr, and why?

Atoms are held together by nuclear force and repelled from one another by electromagnetic force. If there is too much electromagnetic force, the nucleus explodes apart. Without the balance of electromagnetic force and nuclear force, we wouldn't have our elements. If the electromagnetic force were stronger, we would have 20 chemical elements. (less than half the human body's elements would exist, making life difficult) The elements necessary for life would not exist (in the case of 1/10, oxygen wouldn't). Protons would be heavier because they have a net electrical charge (neutrons don't), meaning there'd be no water, no ordinary hydrogen, and therefore, no sun, making life even more impossible. ** Fine Structure Constant-... ** With a weaker electromagnetic force, there'd be more elements than we currently have today. ** Because of this, there are no stable elements above element 92 (Uranium)

What general principle does Barr think materialists have missed when they imagine that the order of the cosmos, solar system and our own bodies has arisen spontaneously?

Barr calls the materialist view of science "superficial" in the sense that it misses a major point regarding the universe--arguably the most important part. Essentially, the order that scientists find in nature is derived from even greater order that is already built in. "The overlooked point is this: when examined carefully, scientific accounts of natural processes are never really about order emerging from mere chaos, or form emerging from mere formlessness. On the contrary, they are always about the unfolding of an order that was already implicit in the nature of things..." Because order arises from order consistently in the universe, science has failed (according to Barr) to truly discredit the Design Argument. In fact, "The universe looks far more orderly to us now than it did to the ancients who appealed to that order as proof of God's existence."

Why does Barr think that, even if there are many-domains, it does not really reduce the theistic implications of the anthropic coincidences?

Barr does not think that these weak anthropic arguments nullify the support for theism He thinks the many domains is "perfectly reasonable" for explaining anthropic coincidences and it is not unlikely that some coincidences of our universe will eventually be explained in this way Theists may highlight this argument to say that the universe could be a different place, but yet it is not. It is a very special place that contains life.... Kind of hinting at that choice was involved??? Every way of explaining anthropic coincidences scientifically involves assuming that the universe has some sort of very special characteristics that can be thought of as constituting in themselves another set of anthropic coincidences.

What point is Barr making about the role of religion in relation to science with his quote from the atheist E. O. Wilson about Chinese scholarship?

Barr is claiming that the idea that there might be a single, omnipotent God helped shape the rationale to search for "universal principles" Barr's point is that science wouldn't have developed as it did without the presence and influence that religion had in Europe **Chinese scholarship during this time lacked a focus on the Fundamental principles of nature, whereas Christian scholarship (in Europe) believed in such laws of nature because of Scripture and God. ** Characteristics of Christian God = creator, omnipotent, designer, rational/intentional

How does Barr respond to this objection(that there may have been no choice about the set-up of the universe)?

Barr redefines the question to relate the lack of choice to God rather than the universe. Barr then looks at the example of the fine structure constant, stating that in a grand unified theory, it is tied to several other parameters. If the grand unified theory is found to be true, it will somewhat explain the fine structure constant, but this doesn't mean there was no choice. Even though the fine structure constant is tied to many other parameters doesn't mean those parameters are locked in as well. The "unification scale" is one parameter that has a choice regarding the numerical value in relation to the fine structure constant. There are also an infinite number of grand unified theories, meaning values and parameters can change depending on which grand unified theory was chosen. There is also no law of logic that states that the universe has to have a grand unified theory behind it at all, it could still be a Standard Model

How does Barr respond to this objection(that conventional scientific explanations may exist to the so-called anthropic coincidences)?

Barr responds to this objection by stating that he believes this objection is true, but it isn't a real objection to the idea of anthropic coincidences. He cites Carr and Rees, who essentially say that even if anthropic coincidences have conventional scientific explanations, they would still be remarkable because relationships "dictated by physical theory" happen to be favorable for life. So, even if all physical relationships needed for life to evolve could be given a conventional science explanation, there would still be a coincidence because these relationships that dictate physical theories also turn out to be needed for the evolution of life. Anthropic coincidences would still be coincidences. The second point he makes to the objection is that although there may be anthropic coincidences, they don't imply that God 5arranged things so that life may evolve, because the things were already fixed by fundamental physical principles. When explained this way, it is basically the same thing as the third objection.

What are Barr's ways of responding to that objection(that very different kinds of life might be possible then the kind we know)?

Barr responds to this objection that we do not know the requirements for life by saying that even though we don't know the requirements, we can reach conclusions that we are relatively confident in. It doesn't matter if it can be proven, because we are more interested in what is plausible or not.

What is the fundamental point that Barr wants the reader to see? Why in making these points does Barr assume evolution to be true? Does that make his argument stronger or weaker?

Barr's fundamental point seems to be that the universe has far too many necessary conditions for it to be all happy circumstance. He has already pointed out in previous chapters the unlikelihood of the universe being borne out of pure chance--now he's just showing that it's practically impossible. Barr assumes evolution to be true perhaps because he agrees with evolution (it's not entirely clear). Mostly, though, his main argument is about why the universe is designed, not about the validity of evolution. It would seriously detract from his scientific argument, especially since evolution is so widely accepted in the scientific community, for him to attempt to argue both points at once. Overall, it makes his argument stronger because he's able to remain focused on his main topic, rather than detracting from it in an effort to cover an otherwise irrelevant theory.

What is Ruse's general reason for maintaining that there won't be any "science-stoppers" even though we can't prove it?

Because history tells us that we eventually will get answers. If we gave up every time we encountered unanswered questions under the paradigm of methodological naturalism, then we wouldn't have the scientific data that we have now **It's faith in the paradigm. **Ruse attacks Plantinga by saying that he does not look at the true history of science and modern scientific discoveries. Because of modern science and the history, he argues that methodological naturalism continues to be upheld.

How did advances in medicine, meteorology and so forth also advance popular acceptance of natural causes instead of supernatural ones?

Before treatment for smallpox was discovered, some people feared that trying to intervene with medicine would be to oppose God's will, as they viewed the epidemic as God executing his judgement on man. But after the treatment was tried out and it worked, the people realized that sickness had natural causes and not necessarily spiritual. ** One argument proposed stated that allowing people to die of disease and refusing treatment was violating the commandment not to kill. When Benjamin Franklin proposed his invention -- the lightning rod -- as a means to preventing houses from being destroyed by lightning, his idea was met with scrutiny-- again, people didn't like the idea of intervening with what they saw as God's judgement. Franklin pointed out that lightning is no more from God than sunshine or wind or rain, and we use houses and roofs to prevent those from reaching us. So why not use lightning rods in the same manner? Soon Christians recognized the validity of Franklin's point, and lighting rods went up on churches to protect from the natural force of lightning.

Why would Barr be unimpressed by those materialists who say that the structure of the solar system is merely the result of simple laws of nature such as the law of gravity and the conservation of angular momentum, and so forth?

Both of these phenomena are directly caused by symmetries in nature, which give evidence of a designer ("who said the universe has to be beautiful?"). **The world tends to be beautiful in its symmetry and order, giving evidence for a designer. The conservation of angular momentum occurs thanks to rotational symmetries in the laws of physics, "that the laws of nature do not distinguish one direction in space from another." I'd explain it better but I'm not sure what he means. The law of gravity is due to the exact masslessness of the graviton, which is due to the symmetries of "general coordinate invariance" and "local Lorentz symmetry" (not important to know what those mean). **They still don't explain the why of these laws of nature.

What does Walton mean by his claim that there was no concept of the natural world in ancient cultures? What is his support?

Categories of "natural" and "supernatural" have no meaning to them nor any interest associated with them since nothing happened independently of the gods/God. Without a deity everything would cease to exist/never would've existed and to think of such processes happening "naturally"/without God would not have been a concept even used by ancient cultures. They didn't have a concept of the gods popping outside of the world for a while.

Explain in some detail the "science-stoppers" argument in favor of methodological naturalism.

Claims of direct divine activity are science stoppers, because they assume a supernatural cause. If this claim is true, scientists cannot investigate it further. They have their explanation. "Obviously we have no guarantee that God has done everything by way of employing secondary causes, or in such a way as to encourage further scientific inquiry, or for our convenience as scientists..."

What is concordism? What are the reasons throughout chapter 1 that Walton is skeptical about this approach?

Concordism is the position that the teaching of the bible, when interpreted correctly, regarding the natural world will agree with science There's a communication barrier. Accommodation bridges the gap because the author and reader don't share the same language, culture, or experiences. In the bible, God accommodate gave the audience high-context communication. When we read the bible, we have a low-context communication... we're outsiders, therefore we need tools to infer the communicator's meaning. Research is necessary People who take the bible seriously believe it is God inspired and that communicator combined divine with human author. locations=source in God. illocutions define the necessary path to meaning that's characterized by authority Our distance might mean we misunderstand. We think differently than the ancient communicator. Comparative studies help us understand rhetorical devices of authors and the genre employed. Helps recognize communicator's cognitive environment that are based on their worldview "God's intention is not to teach science or to reveal science. He does reveal his work in the world, but he doesn't reveal how the world works."

How do the authors differentiate concordist interpretations of Genesis 1 from non-concordist interpretations?

Concordist interpretations hold the view that says that God made the earth as described in Genesis 1 (literal interpretation of the text, at least in sequence). Non-concordist interpretations state that God created the world using a different chronology and order than what is described in Genesis 1. **concordist tries to make Genesis and science line up

What are the main biblical arguments in favor of the day-age view?

Each day (yom) actually refers to an "age" of unspecified duration. The author of Genesis later references a human-oriented creation account in which he uses the word day (yom) to refer to a period of time The word yom is used throughout Scripture to refer to a period of time, such as in Proverbs, it says, "Like the cold of snow in the time [yom] of harvest are faithful messengers to those who send them" Interpreting Genesis in 24 hour periods creates difficulties The sun not being created until the fourth day suggests that the "mornings" and "evenings" of the previous days were not marked by the rising and setting of a sun in a 24 hour period of time Additionally, if Adam had spent 5 minutes naming each animal for a 24 hour period of time, he would only name 288 animals out of 12,000 mammals alone, excluding all now-extinct species Creationists claim that Adam named only the species in the Garden, but this goes against the literal words in the bible, "whatever the man called every living creature, that was its name" Several passages teach that God's "days" are not measured like human "days" Psalm 90: "For a thousand years in your sight are like yesterday when it is past, or like a watch in the night" The Hebrews 4 passage suggests that God is still resting from his work on the previous 6 days, meaning the other days were also long periods of time Several passages teach that the earth is very old. Proverbs says that "Wisdom" was created and established "before the beginning of the earth" (Prov. 8:22-23) There is nothing secular about believing in a very old earth.

The authors explain that early (16th - 18th century) geological models were based on a young earth with a global flood. What evidence had accumulated by 1840 that contradicted these early models?

Early geologists discovered: Dense materials in all sedimentary layers, rather than increasing density along with increasing depth. Conglomerate rocks which indicated multiple floods, rather than just Noah's flood as supposed by Burnet, Woodward and co. Conglomerate rocks are evidence for multiple floods because they are sedimentary rocks which contain pebbles of different types of sedimentary rock than the rock in which the pebble is embedded. Some layers of sedimentary rock were simply too thick to be deposited by a single year-long flood. Even though early geologists could not drill down, they could look at mountains and canyons to see the layers and some had far too many layers for any single flood to have laid down. Evidence of a long history of volcanic activity. The discovery of volcanic cones in southern France, where there were no legends of volcanoes meant that any such activity must have occured before human history began. The layering of volcanic rock did not leave enough time between human history and creation for the land to have formed as it did.

What are the full-fledged creation accounts Walton lists from the ancient Near Eastern literature?

Egyptian- Memphite Theology, Papyrus Leiden I, Pyramid texts, coffin texts, book of the dead. Babylonian- Enuma Elish and Atrahasis Sumerian Texts

What kind of God or gods does Einstein consider to be impossible, based on his vision of the essence of science? Why is this kind of God impossible?

Einstein refutes the idea of a personal God who intercedes in the world and acts on behalf of those who pray to Him. He considers this characteristic of God to be rather "anthropomorphic," in the sense that God supposedly changes the course of events in the universe. This goes against science, which continually places natural order and rationality upon history and processes. The main weakness that Einstein points out with the idea of an omnipotent and personal God is that every event in the universe, including human events, become part of God's will (if He is to be all-powerful). People should then not be held accountable for their actions because they are essentially God's actions. Einstein also asserts that the doctrine of a personal God often falls back on areas that science has not yet been able to understand. According to him, "...a doctrine which is able to maintain itself not in clear light but only in the dark, will of necessity lose its effect on mankind..." He then argues that religious teachers must give up this doctrine for the sake of ethical good. Science, according to Einstein, has actually made "religion" far more profound than the idea of a personal God. ** Omnificence -- doing everything (because God is omnipotent and omniscient) ** Einstein was a determinist--i.e. he believes we are controlled by the laws of nature and that we can predict/calculate everything we do ** He was also a theist, but he did not believe in a personal God. ** Personal God ~ genie in a lamp

What are the key features of the Gap Interpretation?

Essentially, God created the whole universe millions of years ago (see Genesis 1:1), but it does not serve as a true introduction to Creation as we know it. Rather, as seen in Genesis 1:2, the Earth becomes formless and empty due to a great catastrophe that destroyed all previous creation. Therefore, Genesis describes not the original creation but recreation, and it still occurred just a few thousand years ago. Problems: There is no geological evidence of the catastrophe that this interpretation postulates. Furthermore, fossil evidence shows that life-forms, including those we see today, have existed for much longer than 10,000 years.

What did La Mettrie assert to be our only guides to knowledge, and what level of knowledge do they provide?

Experience and observation. These provide knowledge of mechanical/natural processes, but perhaps not absolute truth.

How is the creation story of Genesis different from that of the Enuma Elish?

Genesis vs Enuma Elish (everything listed in respective order - Genesis first, EE after) 1 God vs Pantheon of Gods God created and ordered world by the authority of his Word vs World formed following a battle among the gods Physical world isn't divine vs Sun/Moon/other physical objects are gods that control the fate of humans God declared all parts of creation good vs Some physical structures are related to good gods, others to bad gods God created man and woman in his image and gave them responsibility to be stewards of creation vs Humans were made as an afterthought and created to be slaves to the gods

What is noticeably absent from the 4-volume work, The Fundamentals, that was published in 1915 to describe in detail the basic (fundamental) doctrines of Protestant Christianity? What does that omission indicate about its importance?

Geology/the age of earth; they must not have considered it essential to Christian doctrine **No mention of global flood either.

How do the waters function in ancient Near Eastern creation accounts?

Gods are born out of them; they are considered the "nonexistence" because they don't have function, even if they materially exist.

The "vacuum expectation value of the Higgs field," or ν, would seem to have a "natural value" of 1017, even though its actual value is approximately 1. Why does Barr suggest that almost any increase in the actual value of this parameter would be "disastrous?"

He stated that it would be basically impossible for any element other than hydrogen to exist if v changed. When changing v, the range of the strong nuclear force in particles would be shorter by a certain percent depending on how you change it; this change would weaken the particles from holding together and end the production of all elements except hydrogen. (bad for looking for life in the universe) If v were larger than 500, the universe would contain only an exotic element similar to helium and become sterile. (from only consisting of Delta ++ particles and electrons)

Looking at Appendix A, how would you rank each of these viewpoints? (personal opinion based)

I think this is a very personalized question, since this is very objective and I don't know exactly what I'm ranking it on, but here goes anyway? I just emailed the professors to ask about this question, I'll keep the document updated with what they say. Still haven't heard anything :/ (I asked at 4:22, it's now 8:21) Update: from Dr. Feuerhelm "I think you rank them in terms of your comfort level with each. It's an opportunity to look at the pro's and con's of each, as you see it." (9:20) Still not exactly sure what to do, would greatly appreciate any help here The Spectrum of Views on Origins Ancient Flat Earth - how the OT Hebrews viewed the world "Modern" Flat Earth - The world is flat and fixed but doesn't have firmament/waters above Geocentrism - Round, fixed earth. Everything else moves around it Young-Earth Creation - Young-Earth Creation: Created with Apparent Age Young-Earth Creation: Apparent Age Due to the Fall Progressive Creation Progressive Creation with Recent Creation of Earth and Life Progressive Creation with Special Creation of New Life-Forms Progressive Creation with Common Ancestry and Modification Progressive Creation Through "Miraculous" Evolution Evolutionary Creation with Special Creation of First Life Evolutionary Creation Evolutionary Creation with Programmed Outcome Evolutionary Creation with Chosen Outcome Evolutionary Creation with Flexible Outcome Evolutionary Creation Known Only Via Special Revelation Deistic Evolution Plus Divine Involvement with Humans

What would be the result if atoms were "classical" rather than quantum mechanical? How long would such a classical atom exist before it collapsed?

If atoms operated according to "classical" (pre-quantum mechanics) principles, then it would continuously lose energy as the electrons orbited the nucleus until the atom collapsed into a single point. This would take less than a billionth of a second. Even if atoms somehow do not collapse, no two atoms would be alike. Chemical Elements as we understand them would not be possible, because any two atoms could combine in infinite ways. Chemistry would be impossible without uniform elements, and those are impossible in a "classical" understanding of the atom. "Matter would be in a constant and unpredictable flux." The reason it does not do this is because energy in quantum mechanics operates in tiny packets called quanta. Thus, energy is not lost from electron orbits because it cannot give off less than a single quanta of energy. This allows electrons to keep orbiting and keeps the universe from collapsing into a single point of infinitely dense space.

What catastrophes for life seem to occur if the cosmological constant is very far from zero in value? How is this connected to a deep puzzle in physics?

If the cosmological constant (the number that Einstein came up with in his theory of general relativity that denotes the energy in the vacuum of space) wasn't as small as it actually is, the universe wouldn't have been able to have a nice steady existence for the billions of years required for life to evolve. If the cosmological constant was -1, the earth would have gone through its entire life cycle of expansion and collapse in 10^-43 seconds, called the "Planck time". If the cosmological constant was much closer to 0 than -1, for example -0.000001, the universe would last for a thousand Planck times, which is still an extremely small amount of time. If the cosmological constant is positive 1, the universe would have undergone an "exponential" expansion, doubling in size every Planck time. Even If the cosmological constant was 10^-48, the universe would have doubled in size in the time it takes an electron to orbit the nucleus once, if this process happened this fast, even atoms would be ripped apart. If the cosmological number was 10-80, our bodies would be ripped apart as well. Therefore, the cosmological constant must be less than or about 10-120, it must have at least 120 decimal places. The deep puzzle encountered by physicists is whether the cosmological constant is exactly zero or whether it is fantastically small and no physicist has been able to find a physical reason for the cosmological constant being so small this is called the "cosmological constant problem" and is considered to be the deepest unsolved problem in physics.

What problems does Barr list for the possibility of life if the strong force were a little stronger?

If the strong force were 4% stronger, then new kinds of 2-particle nuclei could occur. Not just protons and neutrons, but proton-proton making di-proton, or neutron-neutron making di-neutron. Affect the burning of stars. Currently Burning hydrogen occurs when 2 protons come together and form deuterium through weak interaction... burning is slow, explains why stars burn for millions/billions of years Following strengthening the force, hydrogen would be able to burn in stars directly by fusing with di-protons. Faster process. Stars would last for a short time not allowing for evolution.

Barr addresses the dimensionality of space from two perspectives. What would be gained if the universe had a number of "hidden" dimensions? What would happen if there were more than 3 "space" dimensions? What if the number of time dimensions were more or less than the one dimension we know?

If the universe had some number of "hidden" dimensions, then that would have consequences for particle physics, including easier unification of theories (e.g. Gravity and Electromagnetism). Many promising unified theory contenders make use of 6 or 7 extra dimensions to merge explanations of phenomena. If the universe had more than 3 dimensions, forces which follow the "inverse square law" (Light, Electricity, and Gravity) would instead follow an inverse N(umber of dimensions)-1 law that would vastly alter many, many things. For Example, Circular planetary orbits would be impossible, because centrifugal force would be unable to balance the gravitational force exerted by their star. The same applies to electron orbits. If there were more than three dimensions, chemistry would be impossible because atoms as we know them could not exist. Also, if the universe only had two dimensions, brains would have to either be significantly less complex or significantly larger so the "wiring" wouldn't cross. If you change the number of time dimensions. 0 time dimensions = static. Hard to see how biology could work at all in a perfectly frozen universe. 1< time dimensions. Thought becomes complicated, and non-sequential. Hard to see complex life developing there because of that.

How does the "flatness" of space affect the duration of the universe? Why does that seem to be important to the emergence of life?

If the universe was to last so long, space had to be extremely flat, or lacking curvature (not warped). The presence of matter warps space, but if we ignored the local bumps and wrinkles caused by matter, the shape of the universe as a whole seems to be flat on the average, the average special curve is very small. This fact about the universe changes over time, but at the time of the Big Bang, the special curve had to be less than 10-35. If the curvature at this time had been any larger, the universe would have expanded and collapsed long before now, not allowing enough time for life to evolve. **Positive curvature: rapid collapse **Negative curvature: rapid expansion

What is the one way that chance might account for the amazing order that science has discovered in the universe, and why does Barr think it does not really do the job?

If there are sufficiently many chances for structures to arise from the amazing order that science has discovered in the universe could happen, however there would have to be many, many attempts and enough time for those attempts to play out in order for probability of chance to succeed in creating the order of the world. Barr uses an analogy of the monkey typing randomly on a keyboard and the absurdly improbability of the monkey to type one grammatical sentence with random number punching unless give adequate amounts of time. Barr also illustrates that some universes, as there could exist many that are irregular and disordered, could contain very elaborate and wonderful patterns purely by chance. The severe problem with numerous distinct and different universes existing is not the exhibition of mathematical structure in a few of these universes, but rather the explanation behind why ourselves happen to live in one of these special, orderly universes. Counter argument to this issue: elaborate structures like complex organisms could arise only out of a universe with a lot of structure and not chaos/disorder. Rejection to this argument: Doesn't explain the facts we see where the universe's order is perfect, or nearly so, and exceptions to the mathematical rules hardly ever, or never, seem to occur. (back to the monkey analogy where the randomly put together sentence is flawlessly compiled which is very impossible while a grammatically correct sentence is more likely) "Why is the orderliness of nature so perfect? ... if the universe is orderly and highly structured simply by the luck of the draw, then it is a miracle that miracles do not happen all the time."P.108 The physical universe can be accounted for by laws and appears more and more wonderfully perfect looking on its fundamental patterns and lacks even minor faults(as the analogy of the thousands of naturally formed gemstones where even the most perfect gemstone has numerous small flaws.) Science has only shown that design is more magnificent than anyone ever dreamed and can't explain away the rich design of nature and its laws so the argument for the existence for God still stands(even stronger than before.)

How does Barr illustrate his principle with his longer discussion about marbles and crystals like diamonds?

Imagine a box with some marbles along the bottom. If one tilts the box to one side, the marbles will arrange themselves in accordance with the "hexagonal packing principle," the arrangement which best minimizes the gravitational force on each marble. Physical forces and mathematical necessity combine to produce a simple pattern. This is how many atheists look at natural laws and justify their claim that order can spring forth spontaneously according to unconscious laws rather than a thinking designer. The counter is that scientific accounts of natural processes are never about order emerging from chaos, but the unfolding of an underlying order implicit in the nature of things, albeit in a hidden way. "Order has to be built in for order to come out." (pp. 79) Returning to the marbles, we see two principles of order at work already. (1) Each marble is spherical, a simple, symmetrical pattern. (2) Each marble has the same shape and size as every other marble. So, even though the first analogy is perfectly valid, it presupposes a greater order (Hello, Stephen Meyer). Is it possible, however, that these presuppositions require less and less order, to the point where the final theory supposes almost no order to get around the problem of organization? No. This is not borne out by examples. In fact, the opposite seems to be true. Order is born out of greater order. Barr gives the example of crystals, which have 48 hexoctahedral symmetries (a big number of complicated symmetries), because of the nearly infinite symmetry of atoms, which is from the symmetry demanded by Quantum Field Theory. On every level, symmetry comes from deeper symmetry.

How does a Temple Interpretation correspond to the declaration of Isaiah 66:1-2 or the prayer of Solomon at the temple dedication (I Kings 8:27 or 2 Chronicles 6:18)?

In the ancient Near East, the temple was viewed as a mini version of the whole cosmos. The Bible seems to portray the cosmos as God's temple which corresponds to the Lord's declaration in Isaiah 66:1-2 which says ""Heaven is my throne, and the earth is my footstool. Where is the house you will build for me? Where will my resting place be? Has not my hand made all these things, and so they came into being?" in that the earth is God's footstool of his throne in the temple. It also connects to I Kings 8:27 and 2 Chronicles 6:18 that both repeat the same prayer by Solomon which seems to connect the temple as being a lesser version of the earth which God created "But will God really dwell on earth? The heavens, even the highest heaven, cannot contain you. How much less this temple I have built!". The developer of this interpretation, John Walton, emphasizes that in the Genesis account, God was just giving purpose and function to the things on earth out of the original disorder, not creating the actual material, which isn't included in the Bible according to Walton.

Explain Walton's phrase "having a function in an ordered system." Explain why this is important to understanding ancient creation stories, according to Walton?

In this ancient culture Something exists by virtue of its holding function in an ordered system not by virtue of its material properties which is how our minds reason today. So something can be material but not exist like a restaurant that has not passed safety codes so it cannot exist as a restaurant even though it is material. This is important because they are probably only going to mention the things they give significance, existence too. Computer illustration. At which point does it exist, different answers.

What are the various interpretations of the Creation accounts held by early Christian writers Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, and Augustine?

Irenaeus and Justin Martyr both read 2 Peter 3:8 "A day for the Lord is like a thousand years, and a thousand years is like a day," along with Adam living 930 years after God says "In the day you eat [the fruit] you shall die," to mean that each "day" was a thousand year period. They adhered to an early version of the Day-Age interpretation. Augustine argued that the "days" should not be taken as literal days, and that God instead created everything simultaneously. He and a few others point to the creation of light on day one, and the sources of light on day 4 as evidence that at least the first three days should not be taken literally. **If the sun, moon, and stars are meant to give us our concept of time and our seasons, what does time even mean prior to their creation? If they supposedly came on "day 4," how do we reconcile that actual days occurred before then? Perhaps it was metaphorical.

Why is it important to try to determine the original context of scripture?

It provides guidance on choosing the most applicable interpretation of scripture based on the context of the time. By working out what the Biblical passage meant in its original context, we can more fully understand the meaning it should have today.

What is the theological issue of the Appearance of Age Interpretation?

It seems deliberately dishonest and out of character for the God we read about to construct an extremely detailed and lengthy false history. "Would God really ask us to believe that the earth is 10,000 years old in spite of abundant geological evidence that it is billions of years old?" (113)

Why does Plantinga think that the science-stoppers argument is not an adequate argument in favor of insisting on methodological naturalism?

Its an unjustifiable claim to say that God created the world even in spite of science stoppers "It is a giant and unwarranted step from the recognition that claims of direct divine activity are science stoppers to the insistence that science must pretend that the created universe is just there, refusing to recognize that it is indeed created." ** "We have no guarantee that God has done everything for our convenience in science or for the benefit of the National Science Foundation"

What singular message did Jim Bradley see in Genesis Chapter 1 when he first read it? Why might Christians in North America not see this message at all?

Jim Bradley saw Genesis 1 as "systematically going through a list of each of the things I saw my polytheistic friends worshiping, and saying to them, 'That is not God. That's a created thing.'" (129). Since he was surrounded by many different world views, he wasn't bound by the stereotypical mindset of the average Christian American. Christians in North America may not see this message because it is something taught from an early age on; we take it for granted and don't see the deeper meaning of it all. "It seemed to me to be quite intentional about speaking to a monotheistic people surrounded by polytheistic cultures." (129). For him, he didn't read the Bible until he was at an age where he was searching for truth; in doing that, he could see a deeper meaning in that which we read for its surface value.

Explain the objection that very different kinds of life might be possible then the kind we know. Include the evidence for this objection.

Life as we know it is based on chemistry, including elements such as carbon, oxygen, hydrogen, etc. However, this does not rule out the possibility of life existing in different forms, possibly based on hydrogen or without the use of any chemistry. Rather than chemical energy, life could possibly arise purely based on nuclear energy. Some scientists propose that life could exist within the plasma of stars--aliens in the Sun! Theoretically, if natural laws had been different, life could have arisen in a different way that we simply do not know about.

Why does Barr think that tamer versions of the many-universes hypothesis would still make us think "someone" was making choices about which universes should exists and which ones shouldn't?

Makes the case for a designer much stronger because who chooses which universes will exist and will not and how each one will be structured So the universes that exist just happen to exist and the ones that do not just happen to not exist and this sounds a lot like someone is making choices.

Explain the difference between the many-domains and many-universes versions of the Weak Anthropic Principle. Also known as WAP

Many domains: There is only one universe that exists, and different parts of the one universe can appear to have different physical laws, despite all being a single set of fundamental laws. (151) This can happen if the matter in different regions of the universe are in different "phases" Like a book. Each page is a different domain, but all pages are bound together somehow Many universes: This version states that there are an infinite number of universes that have nothing to do with each other. Unlike the book analogy, there isn't an easy way to illustrate the disconnect between the books from each other within physical space. Instead imagine each of the books in a void, each are their own universe and can't be related to other books in other voids. There is no overarching space that contains them.

How does Ruse respond to Plantinga's suggestion that since God is intimately involved in the world all the time anyway, there is nothing objectionable about Him doing miracles from time to time? In particular, how does Ruse use Ernan McMullin's distinction between the order of nature and the order of grace to criticize Plantinga's position?

McMullin's argument is that the whole narrative from Abraham to Jesus was God perpetually intervening to bring salvation to mankind because naturally man could not with his own devices. **Ruse points out Plantinga assumes all Christians view miracles in the same way ** All miracles revolve around "The Miracle" of salvation; no need to assume miracles happen all the time "like rabbit out of hat"

Who were some of the early pagans and Christians whom Numbers cites as advancing the search for natural causes for the phenomena of nature? In particular, compare the views of Bacon, Pascal and Boyle.

Milesian Philosophers, Adelard of Bath, Jean Buridan, Nicole Oresme, Galileo Galilei (Not as important as knowing the guys below) Bacon believed that Christians should accept that God works largely through natural causes within the laws of nature discoverable by human effort, even if he occasionally oversteps those bounds. Bacon did fear that this perspective may cause people to trivialize the acts of God too much, which eventually happened. Descartes' theory proposed that the solar system was not directly created by God, but that he created the laws and universe, which in turn formed the planets. Pascal opposed this view strongly, accusing Descartes of trying to dispense of God entirely. Boyle thought that discovering the laws of nature was a religious practice. To disprove pagan beliefs that nature had divine powers, he sought to explain natural phenomena with physical processes. He viewed the world as a mechanical device that was run by the laws of nature, and he believed this view lined up with the biblical concept of God's sovereignty. He also believed God could override natural laws in special cases. ** Any scientists/philosophers that are pre-Newton viewed "natural causes" from the Aristotelian view. Christians would have seen it as God "imbuing" nature with its motives and essence.

Explain why isolated protons are stable while isolated neutrons are not. Why does Barr think life would probably not be possible if this were not the case?

Neutrons are a tiny bit heavier than protons (as in, a seventh of a percent heavier). Mass = energy (theory of relativity) so they also have a little bit more energy. Basically, protons can't destabilize like neutrons do because they don't have the energy. Protons are lighter because they have a lot of u quarks, while neutrons have a lot of d quarks, and u quarks are lighter than d quarks. No one knows why. (Way to remember this: u quarks are "underweight" while d quarks are "dense.") **Theory of Relativity: E = mc2 Energy = mass * speed of light (squared) Ordinary hydrogen is made up of a single proton, so if protons decayed within ten minutes like neutrons do, we wouldn't have hydrogen, which means we wouldn't have water OR organic molecules OR hydrogen-burning stars (like, ya know, the Sun). ** "The universe only accepts exact change, and you can't make exact change for a proton." - Jim Baird 2018

What are the main biblical arguments in favor of the literary framework view(Table)?

Nice little table for the order of the days to see the mirroring thing done Problem(column 1) Formless void Darkness The deep Formless earth Forming place (days 1-3)(column 2)Solution: Stage 1 Day 1: light/separate darkness Day 2: heavens/separate waters Day 3: earth/vegetation Filling void (days 4-6)(column 3)Solution: Stage 2 Day 4: lights Day S: birds/fish Day 6: animal/humans

Explain why there seems to be a natural barrier to the formation of carbon, and how that problem is overcome by an anthropic coincidence. Also, explain why almost all the carbon formed doesn't go on and burn into oxygen, leaving us with a universe with too little carbon to be "life-friendly".

Note to self (probably won't be on the test, this is just to help me understand Barr's words, so don't panic if it doesn't make sense): the number of protons or electrons (it's always the same) determines what element an atom is, while the number of neutrons affects what kind of isotope it is. So "helium" refers to an atom with two protons in its nucleus, while "helium 4" specifically refers to an atom with two protons and two neutrons. Meanwhile, "helium 3" (it's real) refers to an atom with two protons and one neutron, because 2+1=3. The universe has a good amount of helium 4 (a certain helium isotope; it has two protons and two neutrons) that was made in the Big Bang and is being made in stars today. Helium 4 itself is easy to make, but any helium isotopes with numbers higher than 4 are a lot harder to make. This is because helium 4 rejects any single protons or neutrons that bump into it and because it doesn't want to bond with any other helium 4 nuclei. However, if three helium 4 nuclei bump into each other, they'll stick to each other and form a carbon 12 nucleus. But they all have to touch during the same "hundred-millionth of a billionth of a second." This is called the three-alpha process. (After this happens, it's pretty easy to make the heavier elements, or the elements with even more protons and neutrons.) Also a note to self: the element changes (from helium to carbon) because the number of protons changes. Since the time in which this can happen is so small, physicists did some math and figured out how much carbon should be produced in this way, but their numbers were too small; we know there's more carbon than that. Fred Hoyle came up with this idea of "resonant enhancement" - that carbon 12 nuclei vibrate at a certain frequency that helps with the three-alpha process. He calculated that carbon 12 would need an energy level of 7.7 MeV for it to work. Some more scientists did their science thing, and guess what: it has a resonance of 7.66 MeV. (Close enough.) Other examples of resonance: an opera singer shattering a wine glass, blowing across a bottle to make a note, when you sing in the shower and find a note that's really "full." I don't fully understand how this actually works either, but apparently it does. If the energy level had been 7.5 MeV or 7.9 MeV, the whole thing wouldn't work. Carbon production would be waaay down, and pretty much the only thing in the universe would be hydrogen and helium, meaning that "almost no chemical reactions would have been possible" (123). Wait, there's more! If a carbon 12 nucleus combines with a helium 4 nucleus, you get oxygen 16, which has an energy level of 7.1187 MeV. If its energy level was just a little bit higher, the reaction to make oxygen 16 would be resonantly enhanced, and most of that carbon we get from the three-alpha process would be oxygen. Translation: no carbon-based life. **Helium 4 is basically an exclusive club that doesn't like other Helium 4, except in special cases (see above) that result in Carbon 12 **First anthropic coincidence to be noticed. "It looks as if the universe knew we were coming" -Fred Hoyle, an atheist (paraphrased)

What objections to the day-age view are listed and how do defenders of it respond?

Objection: The use of the word yom, especially when numbered, always refers to specific 24 hour days throughout Scripture. Defense: It is not a rule in the Hebrew language that when yom is numbered it must mean a 24 period of time. The only reason that Genesis 1 is the only time when yom isn't used to mean an ordinary day is because it's the only occasion in the Bible that doesn't refer to a human day. In Hosea 6:2, the numbered form of yom is used to describe what many people believe to be epochs: "after two days he will revive us; on the third day he will raise us up, that we may live before him." Objection: The use of "evening" and "morning" suggests a 24 hour day. Defense: Since the sun is not created until the fourth day, they argue that evening and morning can't be taken literally. Therefore, evening and morning marked the beginning and ending of epochs. Objection: The word 'olam means epoch, so if the author meant this he would have used it instead of yom. Defense: "Yom" has been used other places in Scripture to mean "age" or "epoch", therefore they didn't have to use 'olam. 'Olam has a different meaning now than it did when Scripture was written. Back then it had a meaning closer to everlasting or perpetual. Objection: Death entered the world with Adam according to the New Testament, so the day-agers can't believe death was present before human beings. Defense: Geological evidence suggests that animal death occurred before human death Paul was explicitly referring to human death. The death Paul was referring to might not necessarily be physical death, its possibly spiritual death instead. The young-earth views seems to contradict more with science than the day-age view. Objection: The length of the Sabbath now (24 hours) must have matched the length of God's original Sabbath. Defense: In Exodus, the important part of the Sabbath is not the length, but the idea of rest.

Explain the development of theories about the history of the earth and the origin of species, and how those were received by Christian and non-Christian thinkers.

One early theory from Guyot regarding the nebular hypothesis claimed the "days" of Genesis 1 represent periods of activity. This became a popular theory among Christians and Christian sympathizers, while non-Christians continued to search for more evidence for any theory. Later, Charles Lyell set about to incorporate the idea of the "Intervention of intermediate causes" into other aspects of science, including the origin of species. However, Darwin addressed the issue of the origin of species first when he tried naturalizing the origin of species. There were no other real scientific theories competing with his theory, and so it became very successful among non-Christians as well as Christian scientists who accepted Darwinism as "legitimate extension of natural law."

How does Plantinga describe "God-of-the-gaps" theology and why does he agree that it is a truly bad theory? Include his criticisms of it.

Plantinga says that there is not anything that defines it precisely, but he characterizes believers in this theory as a "semi-deist who thinks of the universe as a vast machine working according to a set of necessary and inviolable natural laws." Natural laws are necessary, and God could not or would not violate them. Natural science investigates the universe in order to lay out these laws, and to explain phenomena in terms of natural laws. However, some natural phenomena defies explanation up to this point, therefore a God of the gaps theologian inserts God into these points in order to make up for what they cannot explain. The essential points of this philosophy are as follows: The world is a self-sufficient "machine," and divine activity is limited to what science cannot explain. "God is a kind of large-scale hypothesis postulated to explain what cannot be explained otherwise." The best reasons for belief in God are the phenomena that cannot be explained by natural science. Plantinga thinks this a bad theory because it goes against what the Scriptures teach. Scripture teaches that God is actively involved in every aspect of creation. He also argues that "natural laws are not in any way independent of God, and are perhaps best thought of as regularities in the ways in which he treats the stuff he has made, or perhaps as counterfactuals of divine freedom." These are the reasons he gives as to why the Christian community should not accept this theory. He states that the Christian community does not need to engage in scientific enterprises for apologetic reasons. **From this view, God becomes the most "natural" Being, rather than supernatural. He is constantly sustaining the natural world, so nothing He does is truly supernatural (in the sense of ghosts or magic).

Explain the several ways the Christian worldview might enter into the texture of science without creating science-stoppers, according to Plantinga.

Plantinga states several ways that Christianity might enter science: "(1) stating and employing hypotheses according to which God does things directly; (2) stating and employing hypotheses according to which he does something indirectly; (3) evaluating theories with respect to background information that includes Christian theism; (4) employing such propositions as human beings have been created in God's image either directly or as background; (5) doing the same for such doctrines as that of original sin, which do not involve any direct mention of God at all; and (6) deciding what needs explanation by way of referring to that same background." *** as long as God doesn't directly create the incident which would stop science from continuing (the 'how'). Still can be the primal mover (the 'why').

What is the problem with the origin of life from non-life for those three ways? Which ways might be possible and under what hypothesis, according to Barr?

Pure Chance: Through the monkey on the typewriter analogy, Barr explains that it is extremely improbable for any structure of significant complexity to arise by pure chance. However, this is the only theory that actually could explain how life arose. "The point is that the universe may well be infinitely large and have an infinite number of planets." Through this reasoning, life would be bound to form eventually. **Infinite monkeys! The laws of nature: The orderly arrangement of the solar system emerged in a natural way out of chaos. This orderliness did not require any divine intervention, it only required the laws of physics. However, these laws lead to what Barr calls "elegant patterns," but do not lead to complex life forms. Natural selection: Darwin's theory of natural selection showed for the first time how a complex structure could arise out of natural means rather than through an intelligent being. For example, in this theory, a fish was not "designed" for swimming, rather, over time, fish developed features that allowed them a better chance for survival, leading to creatures with larger and more functional fins. Therefore, fish have a purpose in the sense of natural function, but not in the sense that an intelligent creator designed them with that purpose in mind. However, this theory still does not explain how the first life arose. The origin of life problem is complex because the first organism was probably very complicated. For everything to combine to make this organism in the so-called "primordial soup" would have been about as likely as a monkey writing Hamlet on a typewriter. ** Infinite Monkeys!

What are the three ways Barr mentions of explaining complicated things that seem to be designed?

Pure chance (like monkey on typewriter until he writes Hamlet) The laws of nature (physics, the orderly structure of crystals) Natural selection (the natural selection causing evolution of traits to occur) By the way... throughout this whole section he keeps on mentioning Paley, the person who presented the watch argument in Ch. 9 as proof for something this organized must have a creator. **Infinite monkeys! ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infinite_monkey_theorem )

What does Einstein consider to be the real core of religion, as part of his argument that true religion cannot conflict with science?

Religion deals with evaluations of human thought and a quest to be better humans, whereas science has to do with how facts are related. ** Religious people, according to Einstein, dedicate themselves to a "super-personal" being (not necessarily divine) that allows them to be free from more selfish desires. Essentially, religion deals in morality and values. ** "Independent model" (from podcast)

What are the supporting arguments given for the young earth view?

Revelation & Modern Science. - Christians already believe that God created matter, which violates the first law of Thermodynamics, along with all of the other miracles in scripture. Therefore it is not much of a stretch to say that God created the world in six 24-hour days. The Pattern of Supernatural Work. - When God has done supernatural things, they have typically been sudden and instantaneous. Why should Creation be any different? Death Came Through Adam - Basically, when God originally created the world, everything was supposed to eat plants. Meat was only introduced as a food when Satan corrupted creation in the Fall. One cannot reconcile a God who cares about animals (Ps. 36:6; Jonah 4: 11; cf. Luke 12:6) using the process of evolution, which requires death, to arrive at his goal of humanity. The Precariousness of Modern Science. - A good number of learned scientists disagree with current scientific practice (e.g. radiometric dating, Big Bang cosmology) for good reasons, but no matter how cogent and reasoned their arguments, they are ignored by the strictly secular scientific community. A good Christian must be willing to swim against the stream sometimes, and this is one of those times.

How does Ruse respond to Plantinga's objection that there are no necessary and sufficient conditions for marking off science from non-science precisely, and therefore, Ruse is on shaky ground in making pronouncements that science has to include methodological naturalism?

Ruse admits that even from the methodological naturalism standpoint there are some subjects that are borderline science and nonscience. However, Ruse argues that such subjects, like evolution, had times that didn't exactly define it as either a science or not, but that this did not mean that the notion of good science, and evolutionism being in or out of this notion, is rendered "otiose or impossible to apply." This argument basically boils down to Ruse saying Plantinga didn't bring up a valid point: " The point is there were borderline cases here, as elsewhere in life: the fact that there is no clean demarcation between science and nonscience is no argument against the very idea of methodological naturalism." **The clearest cases and discoveries of science come from methodological naturalism. Essentially, Plantinga brings up a moot point because borderline science is not much of a problem today. "If it's not natural, it's not science!"

How does Ruse respond to Plantinga's criticism that things like the Big Bang are not repeatable and so would not be part are science in the way Ruse has defined it?

Ruse reasons that Platinga doesn't provide any reason to give up on methodological naturalism and supports this by providing an example of the demise of the dinosaurs at the end of the Cretaceous. The demise of the dinosaurs was a unique and unrepeatable phenomena as Ruse explained, however he goes to include that the factors that made up the demise of the dinosaurs wasn't a unique happenstance and those factors could each be repeated in and of itself. The factors, like comets and dust causing darkness, could be brought under regularity while the specific event of the creatures that existed only once and then died and never would reappear was unique. Ruse compares this death of life to the death of annual plants at the end of the growing season. **Harrington also addressed this idea in the sense that science is constantly striving for repeatability, even if it's not completely exact. ***It's like solving a murder case - you're not going to repeat it. It's not the event that needs to be repeatable, it's how it happened, the laws concerning that event. ** Events need not be repeatable, but the science behind events does.

Einstein claims that belief in science is a faith, but a pretty well justified faith. What is the main content of the faith he has in mind, and what is the pretty-good-if-not-coercive justification he sees for it?

Science bases itself around the presupposition that "the regulations valid for the world are rational, that is, comprehensible to reason." Essentially, Einstein makes the argument that scientists work within the "sphere of religion" insofar as they find themselves inspired by the search for "truth and understanding." "I cannot conceive of a genuine scientist without that profound faith"--i.e. faith found in reason and naturalism. Einstein sees the current spiritual evolution of the world as striving towards reason and rational knowledge. He justifies this by drawing parallels between the typical religious person and the scientist. A religious person, by his explanation, is preoccupied with a super-personal being, whether divine or not, rather than themselves. They are essentially "emancipated" from the selfish desires of the world. Einstein argues that this also becomes a goal of scientists as they strive for a pure understanding of how the universe operates. "By way of understanding he achieves a far-reaching emancipation from the shackles of personal hopes and desires, and thereby attains that humble attitude of mind..."

Drawing from his different statements in the essay, describe Einstein's core beliefs about the essence of science.

Science links phenomena; it finds the causes of events and determines what other events those causes might create. "Science is the century-old endeavor to bring together by means of systematic thought the perceptible phenomena of this world into as thoroughgoing an association as possible." "It is the aim of science to establish general rules which determine the reciprocal connection of objects and events in time and space." "Although it is true that it is the goal of science to discover rules which permit the association and foretelling of facts, this is not its only aim. It also seeks to reduce the connections discovered to the smallest possible number of mutually independent conceptual elements." ** Laws and discoveries are not proven, according to Einstein. They require "scientific faith."

Describe the elements mentioned in the "dethronement of man" story that science seemed to be telling, at least up until the discovery of the anthropic coincidences.

Science seemed to be saying that there was an element of pointlessness in the cosmos, and in the possibility that the human race is the byproduct of this blind material force. Man was seen to have been "built" into the world, but works that pointed out the indifference to man's presence, such as in Stephen Jay Gould's Full House, the dethronement of man's arrogance is made through the major revolutions in the history of science such as Copernicus, Galileo and Newton's identification that the earth was as tiny as a satellite to a marginal star and wasn't the central body of a limited universe. With the relegation of descent from an animal world as Darwin rejected the possible notion that man was made in God's unique image. Another example that science provides to dethrone man is in paleontological discoveries where human existence only fills the last "micromoment in planetary time," so not from the very beginning of creation. **Pre-Copernicus: Hell/Satan was actually the true center of the universe, so it was not placing humanity on a pedestal by having Earth close to that center. In their reality, the heavens represented a far better outcome than Earth. **Essentially, there's a misconception about what pre-Copernican theories

What role did the analysis of symmetries play in the unification of the electromagnetic and weak force?

Scientists discovered that the three major non-gravitational forces are all based on the same type of symmetry. This led to the mathematical unification of the theories behind the forces (basically the theories were translated into the same "math language" because they were based on the same type of symmetry). This unification made it possible to integrate the theories themselves, thus allowing the unification of the electromagnetic and weak force theories.

How does separating play into ancient Near Eastern creation accounts?

Separates the heavens and the earth. "Most common creative activity in Egyptian texts".

How does Ruse respond to Plantinga's criticism that there may be no such thing as natural laws?

Since Plantinga uses van Fraassen as evidence, so does Ruse. Ruse makes the source that Plantinga uses work for himself by stating that no one, including van Fraassen, would deny that there are certain regularities of some kind and that those are presupposed in the activity of science. Today we are able to use these scientific advancements, like physics, without having to confess that they are still theological or alchemical. Even if indeed it is the case that law does have its roots in Enlightenment deism as Platinga stated, there is still no reason that we cannot use it today in an entirely secular way: the way of the methodological naturalist. **Pointing out the origins of an idea doesn't necessarily discredit their relevance today.

What are Walton's reasons for saying that to tell how something was created doesn't have to mean to tell how it came into physical existence?

So he enters into this kind of philosophical discussion, of what does it mean to be created? One can create a company, a curriculum, a building, but what must be done for that created thing to be called what it is? Concept of ontology- what is it of X that causes X to exist, what makes a ball a ball and not a cake He says for example, that the creation of curriculum is a mere organization of ideas and thoughts, it is not involved in a creation of the paper it will be printed on it just organized in such a way that the ideas are curriculum and not just ideas We must try to understand what the ancient world meant when they said creation because even we use it in many different ways. i.e. look at this playdough dragon I created!

What is Barr's criticism of the simplest, if craziest, version of the many-universes hypothesis, that all possible universes exist?

So this is something that materialists can grasp onto. This idea is called "model realism" by philosophers, and presents a way in which you don't have to make decisions. Its kinda crazy, like there is a universe where Wizard of Oz is real. FATAL FLAW: It makes it impossible to understand the underlying orderliness of nature.

How is the imagery of Genesis 1 reflective of Ancient Near Eastern Cosmology? What literal elements would be a part of that imagery?

Starting from darkness, God created the world on Day 1. On Day 2, God separated the waters into "waters above", held back by solid firmament (agrees with Ancient beliefs), which helps tie into Ancient thinking that rain came as a result of water existing above the sky. "Waters below" helps reference the Ancient thinkers belief that there is an abyss of water under the Earth Literal elements: Earth is flat; not spherical Sky is a solid dome rather than a transparent atmosphere Sun, moon, and stars move along the skydome around the earth There is an ocean of water above the sky

Plantinga talks about the ongoing struggle between the City of God and the City of Man. What is Plantinga's rule of thumb for telling when a bit of science is likely to slide away from being completely neutral in this struggle?

The City of God, Civitas Dei, is devoted to the worship and service of the Lord. Normal natural science is a large proportion on contemporary intellectual life and gives insight about ourselves and how the world works. When properly pursued, science utilizes reason to discover truth independent of ideology, moral convictions, or theology It's naive to think science is religiously and morally neutral. Certain aspects of science are influenced by worldview Rule of thumb = the relevance of of science depends upon how closely involved the attempt is to the understanding ourselves as human beings. Also another variable: how "theoretical" the bit in question is, in the sense of being directed at understanding, not control. Christian academic and scientific community should pursue science in it's own way starting from what we know as Christians. Conflicts with naturalism. **Intent of scientific discovery affects how "neutral" science can remain

What is the basis of the Day-Age Interpretation?

The Day-Age Interpretation attempts to say that the events of Genesis 1 did not occur in six literal days. Instead, they occurred as epochs--great expanses of time perhaps millions or billions of years long. This interpretation is based on original Hebrew word yom, translated as either a literal twenty-four hour day or an indefinite period of time. Although the six days of creation use the phrase "there was evening and there was morning" (thus implying a literal day), advocates of this interpretation use the latter meaning of yom for the seventh day on which God rested (which does not use the evening-morning phrase). Others say that the phrase refers to the "final twenty-four-hour day at the end of each long yom." Problems: Although this interpretation reconciles Genesis with the scientific age of the universe, it still conflicts with the sequence of events. For instance, it seems impossible for plants to be created before the sun (as reported in Genesis), and this also conflicts with what science suggests.

What fundamental messages about Creation are found in the New Testament passages of John 1:1-3, Colossians 1:15-20, Hebrews 1:1-4, and Hebrews 11:3?

The New Testament teaches important doctrines such as the role of the Trinity, not God the Father alone, to form and sustain the world. God (assuming as the whole Trinity) sustains everything and upholds the ongoing function of the physical laws, matter, and energy. Without God those laws would fall apart. The "progressive revelation" is where the importance of Christ wasn't revealed in the very beginning, thus the lack of Christ's mentioning in Genesis 1. Furthermore, the New testament also tells us that God created everything, and nothing in the universe was made by any other authority or power, from matter or energy to space and time, everything was made by God. He made all of this out of nothing, and "matter and energy are neither self-existing nor coeternal with God".

Describe the Shrinking Sun Argument. Why would Answers in Genesis, a leading Young Earth Creationism organization, list it as a flawed argument?

The Shrinking Sun Argument: If the sun has been shrinking, then it must have been bigger in the past; the sun would've been as large as the earth's orbit 22 million years ago. Such a thing is inconsistent with the earth's age and the theory of solar evolution. This argument was used by the creation science community to argue that the earth couldn't be billions of years old. The reason this is a flawed argument is: the evidence for this was from an initial report and not something confirmed or accepted Assumes the sun shrank at a constant rate and didn't consider temporary shrinking or oscillation. New research came out that the sun, if it was shrinking, did so at a much slower pace than initially reported and that the initial report of this shrinkage was unreliable because of their observational inconsistencies. **Accepted idea today: oscillation (the sun shrinks a little bit and then grows a little bit cyclically, at about 8 years to a cycle) **Peer review is important!

What are the supporting arguments in favor of the literary framework view?

The ancient Near Eastern Background: Ancient Near Eastern texts, such as the Enuma Elish, have also described the world being created in a "6 day + 1" format. Therefore, there is a pattern of presenting creation in the form of a weeklong period and it is likely that the Genesis author was following this pattern The theology of Genesis 1: The author of Genesis 1 does not seem very concerned with creating a scientific account. Instead, they appear to be more interested in battling false theology (Near Eastern views on creation and the pagan treatment of the sun, moon, and stars as divine beings) with true theology. The weakness of alternative views: The other theories have issues, such as the idea that plants could live for a day, or even an entire age, without the sun. The literary framework view not only avoids this problem but actually explains it. The order of the days is not meant to reflect the chronology of creation. It expresses thematically the problems of darkness, watery abyss, formlessness, and void expressed in Genesis 1:2. Genesis 1 and the scientific evidence: This interpretation can easily be reconciled with with any scientific theory that someone chooses to embrace, but this reconciliation is not necessary because Genesis 1 strictly deals with theology, not science.

Why, according to Barr, are all electrons the same? (In this connection, be able to comment on Barr's question "...but who said the world had to be beautiful?") Why does Barr think that the explanation of electron "orderliness" will in turn exhibit deeper order below it, etc. etc., etc.?

The answer to the question of why all electrons are the same lies in a level deeper than atomic physics called Quantum Field Theory, which is the mathematical framework used to understand fundamental particles like electrons. This field tells us that particles come from fields which fill up all of space and vibrate in certain characteristic ways all throughout the space. Therefore, all electrons are the same, because the electron field that fills space is the same everywhere. He claims that if these electron fields had different properties on different places it would strike most particle physicists as ugly, but the world doesn't have to be beautiful. But since the world tends to be beautiful, and that electron fields are uniform across all of space, reveals a very large degree of symmetry. Through our investigation of all phenomena in the world, we trace it through layer after layer to the deeper level of the world's structure, where greater and more comprehensive patterns lie at the more concealed fundamental levels. He believes that history of natural investigation has proved through so many examples that there will always be a deeper level that exhibits an even more complex order. Science has shown us that most of this beauty and order has been hidden from our eyes.

Walton claims that God didn't do much if anything to revise or update the scientific understanding of the cosmos held by the ancient Israelites (and other ancient cultures). What are some of the elements of the ancient view of the world Walton mentions? Why does Walton think God didn't just tell them the correct scientific view?

The beginning of Genesis (Genesis 1:2;2:5-6), the ancient view of creation began with a description of non-creation (the pre-creation state). Another ancient cosmology commonality is the world covered in water and darkness (non-order). This is not lacking material, but lacking function and purpose. Creation resolved the absence of order, not material. Another ancient view is this: non-existence is not a material thing; it has to do with order and divine agency. Overall, the ancient creation story isn't about material existence or activity—it's about bringing order, purpose, and function to material things (that's what God did). I think God simply didn't tell them the scientific view because it wasn't in the mindset of the ancient world. However, this is my opinion; I couldn't find this in the book.

Explain the debate over the natural origin of the solar system, and how it 1) gradually came to be used by Christians; 2) in the process, helped move Christians deeper into the spirit of naturalism.

The debate over the natural origin of the solar system first became a Christian related issue when Isaac Newton made claims regarding the creation of the solar system as being influenced by a creator from a "common Chaos." Later, Buffon tried to build on this Christian belief by stating that the Creator set into motion the natural history of the solar system, but Christian critics criticized him for moving away from the idea of a divine Architect. Other interpretations arose that advanced Christians toward accepting naturalism such as Laplace's idea that the planets had been formed from the revolving atmosphere of the sun when it cooled (though many Christians denounced this theory as well), and Nichol's theory that the laws of nature themselves are evidence of a creator. However, the most accepted contribution came from Kirkwood, who argued that God created and sustained the world through secondary causes. God uses intermediate agencies such as the laws of the universe to govern it.

Would Barr describe the electromagnetic force as necessary or contingent? What would happen if this force did not exist at all?

The electromagnetic force is very easy to leave out of a theoretical universe, but it is necessary because atoms depend on it to exist. Without it, the universe would have no atoms, no chemistry, and no light. It is very hard to imagine life as we know it in such a radically different universe.

What are the main biblical arguments in favor of the restoration view?

The formless void described in Genesis 1:2 was brought about as a result of God's judgement. God did not originally create the world in chaos, but it eventually descended into chaos. Isaiah 48:15 states that God did not create the world in chaos, but this is how Genesis 1:2 describes it.

In chapter 2, what evidence does Walton give from Egyptian Papyrus Insinger that creation accounts were often more concerned about function than physical origin?

The functional orientation is seen in the hidden works of the god where actions and necessities were put into place to serve a need. The creations' physical origins aren't explicitly stated, instead the author expounds on the need or purpose that the creation fulfilled. Ex: "He created constellations of those that are in the sky, so that those on earth should learn them." Constellations served the purpose to be studied and understand the gods who were thought to be celestial bodies. Ex: "He created remedies to end illness, wine to end affliction" also show the purpose of remedies and wine to help people. Ex: "He created the dream to to show the way to the dreamer in his blindness." There was a problem and the dream solved the issue by serving the purpose to guide the dreamer. There's like 18ish lines of these which all show a function rather than emphasizing the physical source of the creation.

What is the inherent temptation of non-concordist interpretations?

The inherent temptation is that it goes along with the rest of the scientific community as well as a growing number of people, once again a non-concordist will have less conflict with science. It can be a cop-out to say "It's just figurative bro," when some passages are clearly intended to be taken literally.

What are the ways in which weakening the strong nuclear force would be a disaster for the chances of life existing in the universe?

The strong nuclear force holds atomic nuclei together. Weakening the force would change the interactions between atoms, and consequently what kinds of atoms exist in nature, affecting everything made of matter Making the strong force 10% weaker would choke off the process of making the elements at the first step (putting one proton and one neutron together to form hydrogen 2/deuterium.) The weakened force wouldn't be able to hold the deuterium nucleus together. Protons and neutrons would bounce off each other without sticking. Hydrogen 1 would be the only element. No sun or stars... they burn by nuclear fusion reactions. If particles don't stick, no fusion can occur **gluons -- "glue" nuclei together

What does Numbers see as the crux of the Intelligent Design movement? What has been its results and what does Numbers expect?

The structure of a cell indicates some sort of intelligence designed it. Most scientists have ignored it while a few have criticized it as "creationist bull****." Numbers expects that secularization in science will not secularize society by and large. People will continue to be Christians even if scientists stop saying, "God did it."

What is the primary feature of the Creation Poem Interpretation?

The structure of the six days is the primary feature of this Interpretation. The first three days are days of forming (meaning that the world is created, or formed), while the following three days are days of filling (meaning that the world is filled with creatures). This gives the narrative a poetic parallel.

What objections are listed to the young earth view and how do the proponents of this view respond to them?

The sun was not created until the fourth day. - Critics argue that because the sun wasn't created until the fourth day, the "days" in genesis are not 24 hour days. - Response: God's first action was to create "light" and while the source is unknown, it allowed for a pattern of "morning" and "evening" to measure each day. The seventh day of rest is still in progress -Hebrews 4:1-11 suggests that the seventh day of rest is still in progress as it encourages us to join in the "rest" God had been enjoying. - - From this, we can assume the other six days were also long periods of time. - Responses: The text doesn't say the seventh "day" is still in progress, it only implies that the Sabbath rest is continuing. The rest referenced in Hebrews only relates to the promised land-- a "rest"-- however, it's more than just the promised land, it is the rest of the Sabbath, but it is going beyond the text to read anything about the length of God's seventh day Too much activity took place on the sixth day - It would have taken a much longer period of time for Adam to name "every living creature" (Gen. 2:19) - Responses: At this point, Adam had an unfallen mind, and God could have supernaturally assisted with the task It could have been a special class of animals used for the express purpose of seeing what Adam would name them Is God deceptive? If God created the world with the appearance of age, he is deceptive - Responses: They do not accept what scientists argue is "the appearance" of old age. The earth does not even "appear" billions of years old, it appears thousands of years old. What God created from nothing would have the appearance of age. He created fully developed man and woman and animals, not eggs and embryos. - Again, they believe that things that "appear" to be billions are years old are actually only thousands of years old. Stars, while they should take billions of years for light to reach us, God could have created them in such a way that their light already reached us.

What are the supporting arguments in favor of the day-age view?

The truthfulness of God There are many passages in the Bible that tell us that God is honest and that he reveals things to us through both Scripture and his creation. Therefore, why we would God in effect lie to us through creating a world that appears old and deceive us into thinking it is, when its actually not? It seems like God would be deceiving us if he did this, but we know from Scripture that God is not deceptive. The credibility of the Church We must learn from history, specifically the history between science and religion, to know that we shouldn't insist on literal translations of all Scripture, because this caused the church to lose credibility. Galileo warned against interpreting the Bible in a way that conflicts the current understanding of science. If Scripture can't be reconciled with science, then we should side with Scripture. If there are interpretations of Scripture that don't conflict with science, then we should prefer those. (Hello Augustine!) The scientific evidence We shouldn't ignore science in our interpretations. If we are able to look at Scripture in a way that doesn't contradict what all scientists believe (the world is 15 billion years old and has evolved over that time) then we should prefer that interpretation. If we ignore science, large gaps can be created between Scripture and the way we see God's creation, and we could lose credibility.

How do Isaiah 66:1-2, I Kings 8:27 and Isaiah 6:3 figure into Walton's argument in chapter 8?

The view that the cosmos can be seen as the temple, which is supported by these verses is the argument that Walton makes on the premise of Genesis 1 where "it should be understood that it should be an account of functional origins of the cosmos as a temple". Isaiah 66:1-2 supports this idea by presenting elements of a cosmic-sized temple, connection between temple and rest, and a connection between temple and creation. 1 Kings 8:27 consists of a Solomon's dedication prayer and Isaiah 6:3 where God's presence can't be contained in the Heavens and much less so in the temple, yet he resides there anyway and fills the earth with his glory.

What difficulties tend to arise when one applies concordist interpretations to Genesis 1?

Then it appears that science and christianity are in conflict and now instead of defending theology christians would have to defend a scientific theory. It also is a slippery slope to have to defend even more passages of the Bible as literal when that may not be their intent. (Think camel through eye of a needle parable)

In what three ways does Plantinga argue against Michael Ruse's claim that theories that make reference to God are not scientific by definition? (Admittedly the details the second two ways are a little hairy, but give it your best shot.)

There isn't actually a distinguishing definition for what science is, like what Ruse proposes. "Ruse does not address the many and (I think) successful arguments for the conclusion that there is no such set of necessary and sufficient conditions, let alone such a definition of the term 'science' ; he simply declares that-by definition-science has the properties he mentions." "Ruse here proposes three properties that he says are by definition characteristic of any bit of science: that bit deals with things that (a) are repeatable, (b) are merely natural, and (c) are governed by natural law." To the first point, Plantinga argues that the Big Bang was unrepeatable. So, by Ruse's logic, the Big Bang would not actually be part of science. To the point of natural law, Plantinga argues that there are regularities, but not necessarily law; "a law is supposed to explain and ground regularities." If Van Fraassen is correct, then there would be no science. **Van Fraassen's main point is strict empiricism to ensure that God remains "out of the picture." Essentially, since it's impossible to have infinite data, laws are strictly impossible. They are just regularities. The third point Plantinga argues is that if there was a serious dispute about what science was and was not, it would be hard to see how a definition could satisfy this debate.

What are some of the similarities found by comparing Psalm 104, Genesis 2:4-25, and Genesis 1:1-2:3?

They all describe the same creation event. There is 1 creator He made everything All of His creation is good and orderly

How does an original non-functional condition figure into ancient Near Eastern creation accounts?

They all start with a condition of non functioning, like everything is a singularity or no actions are taking place and nothing is differentiated

How does a Kingdom Covenant Interpretation fit with the story of Abraham, which occupies most of Genesis?

They claim that Genesis 1 shares the same themes of land grant covenants and suzerains (powerful rulers giving limited authority over land to others). Humans are granted limited authority over the earth. The message in Genesis is to set up relationships between God, nature, and humanity. This seems to fit with the story of Abraham in that it gives authority to humans to rule on the earth and populate it, as was also promised to Abraham in that he would rule over lots of land and be the father of the nations.

Explain the objection that there may have been no choice about the set-up of the universe. Include the evidence Barr cites in favor of this view.

This objection states that one is not entitled to ask what the universe would be like "were some particular feature of the laws of nature different" Essentially, any value could be different, the numerical value we place on certain things such as the fine structure constant because the numbers work and furthers scientific discovery Very few physicists think the Standard Model is the ultimate theory of physics The connection of all physical phenomena might imply that in the "ultimate theory," it may turn out that everything has to be just as it is, meaning that there was no real choice regarding the setup of the universe.

Explain the objection that conventional scientific explanations may exist to the so-called anthropic coincidences. Include the evidence Barr gives to support this objection. (I am very confused about the science in this one)

This objection states that the evolution on life may have conventional scientific explanations. For example, Barr says that it is tempting to use the fine structure constant as a way to explain life by saying that it allows the existence of many chemical elements, and therefore allows life. However, the conventional explanation of the fine structure constant is that it is based on the "grand unification" of forces (this states that the strengths of different forces are tied to each other). This "grand unification of theories" has some scientific evidence to back it up. Barr makes the concession that the examples he gives are not fully explained yet, but he says that the fact that "plausible explanations already exist for some of them gives some grounds for hope" that conventional scientific explanation will be found for all of them. Another way of saying this that is stated later in the chapter is that facts that are cited as anthropic coincidences actually probably have conventional scientific explanations.

What objections to the literary framework view are listed and how do defenders of it respond?

This view acquiesces to liberal theology: Liberal theologians deny an event occurred because they find Scripture (about the resurrection, to list one example) impossible to believe. Literary framework theorists deny that Genesis 1 should be taken literally because they believe that the author did not intend for it to be that way This view overstates the parallels with other ancient Near Eastern Texts: They don't deny that there are differences between these texts. However, by using "days" instead of another type of quasi-standard benchmark, there are parallels to be made between Genesis and the other accounts. "Day" is always used in a literal way in Hebraic literature (3 defense arguments): Many scholars agree that the concept of "day" does function as a structural literary device in other ancient Near Eastern texts, so there is a valid reason for that interpretation. The literary use of "day" in ancient Near Eastern texts is always in creation passages. Interpreting "day" in a literal fashion creates difficulties that the literary framework avoids This view creates a false antithesis: There is no reason to engage in such a debate because it will only open the theory up to the biblical, logical, and scientific difficulties that the other 3 theories are dealing with. This view undermines the command to keep the 7th day holy: Even though literary framework viewers do not believe that chronology is the point, God rested after he had brought order out of chaos and his work culminated in a rest that celebrated the goodness of creation (Genesis 2:2-3). That is the main purpose of the Genesis passage about the 7th day. It is not connected to whether the "days" are 24 hour periods or the chronological order of these "days".

What are some of the chronological differences found between the accounts in Genesis 1:1-2:3 and Genesis 2:4-25?

To start with, the account in Genesis 2 is missing the majority of the first steps, mentioning first the creation of dry land and rivers instead of the heavens and the earth. In Genesis 2 birds are created at the same time as other animals rather than the day before, and man is created before plants and animals. To explain the differences, some claim that Genesis 1 is a global creation account, and Genesis 2 is a more local event, while others claim Genesis 2 is just an extended account of day 6, but any way you look at it the differences mean some interpretation is necessary.

Explain why Barr says that, if science does discover the ultimate or final laws of nature, the order or symmetry in them cannot be explained by laws of nature?

Ultimate theory is called "superstring theory" or "M-theory". Unifies all 4 forces of nature. Presently only known to formulate a theory of gravity that's consistent with theory of relativity and quantum theory. Foundational maths of M-theory aren't completely understood Laws of symmetry lie above our mental powers. Science explains order by showing it comes from a more profound order. Ultimate goal of physics isn't to uncover the laws of nature, most physicists believe that there are a set of laws beyond science's reach. All scientific explanations flow from these fundamental laws Fundamental physicists are sustained by faith that ultimate design theory is suffused with symmetries Final theory is M-theory. Mathematically advanced. If ultimate laws of nature are subtle and beautiful, science can't explain that design. Science explains design by it being a consequence of a greater design, but has no way of explaining ultimate design of nature. Ultimate laws of physics are the end of scientific explanation. No alternative other than argument from design Chance, laws of nature and natural selection can't explain the structure of ultimate laws of physics.

In chapter 8, how does Walton understand the imagery, furniture and decorations of the Jewish Tabernacle and Temple in relation to the cosmos?

Walter makes many transparent connections between the cosmos and tabernacle where every part of the tabernacle is suppose to recall and represent the cosmos. From 1 Kings, the water basin designates the "sea" and the bronze pillars represented the pillars of the earth. The horizontal axis in the tabernacle was arranged in the same order that the vertical axis of the cosmos. The cosmic waters and the pillars of the earth were representative of the elements outside the organized cosmos by being in the courtyard while the organized elements were in the antechamber. Inside the antechamber were the Menorah which represented the light of God, the Table of Bread which represented the food that God provided, and the incense altar which produced a sweet smelling veil to separate earth from Heaven. Furthermore, the tabernacle has a lot a imagery of the Garden of Eden(flowing waters of abundance from temple of Ezekiel=waters from the garden) where it is understood that the garden itself is understood as a type of sanctuary, and this sacred space was essentially a minicosm where the presence of God was adjoined as an archetypal(classic) sanctuary.

In chapter 8, what West Asian and Egyptian texts does Walton appeal to to illustrate the link between building the temple and making the cosmos function?

Walton appeals to the West Asian text of the Sumerian text of the Gudea's construction of the temple in the temple hymn of Kes to show the temple serving a cosmic function. Due to the separation between "heaven and earth" caused by the temple, the temple associates it with the most primordial act of creation. (I didn't find a specific name of a text, but Jan Assman states the following in reference to both sumerian and Egyptian temples:) "the temple was where the omnipresent God filled to its limit" and the temple was for all intents and purpose, the center from which the cosmos could be maintained. More Egyptian oriented, the names of temples provided clues to the relationship between the temple and the cosmos, where the location of a temple recalled a primeval mound that had first appeared out of cosmic waters. Temple Esharra meaning "House of the Cosmos" and temple Etemenanki meaning "House of the foundation Platform Between Heaven and Earth" showed this early origin of the original sanctuary whose significance is passed to the present temples.

What are the five primary arguments in favor of the young earth view?

When the Hebrew noun yom (day) is used in the singular form, it means day in every other context. There is no reason to read this instance differently, despite "counter-instances" offered by advocates of the Day-Age theory. These counter instances fall short of their intended goal, and do not go against the normal usage of yom. Whenever yom (day) is used with a specific number, it means a regular 24-hour day. As before, the "counter-instances" do not go against normal usage of yom. The author uses "evening" and "morning" in the text. This clearly means that yom refers to the normal 24 hour period, because to say an age has "morning" and "evening," is preposterous. When God says, "and let them be for signs and for seasons and for days and years," he is certainly referring to normal days. Why would the author suddenly use a different meaning for the same word in the same text? God commanded Israel to imitate the cycle he set out when creating the world by keeping the Sabbath as a day of rest. Yom is clearly meant to refer to days here, and is also used in reference to the Creation story! This passage in Exodus 20 definitively shows that the world was created in 6 literal days. All of these arguments revolve around a highly literalistic reading of Genesis 1. This view almost requires total unfamiliarity with ancient cultures to function.