Sir, Mar y Roe sounds frustrated that some of us are less than content with the Standar d Model. The trouble is it is mathematically sound, but scientifically and philosophically little mor e than a fairy stor y.
To suggest that a hot Big Bang expansion, in a trillion trillionth of a second, followed by for mation of highly specialised photons, quarks, gluons, bosons along with nuclear weak and strong forces and electromagnetic force and in such a way that atoms of hydrogen could form by themselves, out of nothing, at random, is already beyond scientific credibility! The ar rival of Gravity r emains a problem within the standard model, at precisely 10-38 x nuclear strong force. Coming from a university maths background myself, I know that mathematicians can put formulas to anything, but it does not make their axioms truthful.
The r uling paradigm, when it gets to biology, is even more implausible. LUCA (last universal common ancestor) had the following: a discr ete membrane round it of great complexity, containing the ver y complex proteins needed to form an electron energy gradient to make ATP; a lipid of cor rect fluidity in it and lipid por es; a cytoskeleton scaffolding within the cell to hold kinesin motor pr otein construction workers, fuelled by ATP, to build the next cell; a genome of 500,000 nucleotides inerrantly programmed to for m the above and quite a lot more, too complicated to bore you with. This is supposed to have bubbled out of “some warm pond” (quoting Darwin) or a hydrothermal vent.
This is of course 19th centur y science, because Dar win thought life was simple and that it could spontaneously generate, like most scientists of his day, 1858. It was not till Louis Pasteur won his prize from the Paris Institute in 1864, that it was finally established that life can only come fr om other life. Finally , that is, to ever yone except believers in the ruling paradigm who suggest that the first life is an exception it must bubble out of earth’s ocean, or a Mars ocean or somewher e equally impossible! Why does not 21st centur y microbiology have any ef fect on the ruling paradigm on origins?!
Foundational to life is the DNA genome. It carries the instructions to transmit to RNA and grow ever ything. The 98 per cent of it once arrogantly named “junk DNA” is now known to be the switches that switch on genes, probably containing the ability to change adapt and evolve and respond to
different environments and threats. In answer to the question “did life arrive by random forces or by Divine Fiat?”, the maths of probability insists the latter. If DNA is a language that we can read, it seems likely that God can speak it. If so, he spoke the DNA creating LUCA. Why then would he not speak several other families of DNA? And why would he want to take billions of years to do it?!
21st century biology, chemistry and astrophysics (for which complete absence of dark matter and energy remain a negating issue in the standard model) are most easily understood by Genesis 1.
By the end of day one God had created the heavens with billions of active galactic nuclei of hydrogen kick-starting the galaxies we see today, to produce suns with great rapidity and velocity, (like galaxy Az-TEC 3). The newly formed “light” from our own Milky Way, which seems to have travelled 25,000 current-speed-of-light years by the evening, was shining on a rotating ball of water which is the earth. Perhaps this indicates light was of infinite speed, like gravity then?
On day 2, God spreads some of our globe of water throughout the intended solar system (the expanse, into which he was going to put the sun and moon on day 4). Nothing more apparently.
Day 3, God gathers the water to a largely subterranean sea, perhaps 4 km deep, (no rainbow appears till Noah) and makes land appear, on which he “speaks” 15 phyla of plant life and phyla of land bacteria and archaea, or 85 orders of plants, all of them with the inbuilt potential to evolve into the genus’s and species we know today. This was declared good, like succeeding days.
Day 4 God creates the sun, moon and perhaps 10-12 planets. (The asteroids we know that later hit the moon, Mars, earth and reshaped the solar system in “the late heavy bombardment” and are in the asteroid belt, seem to be made of rock and iron from broken up planets.) “He made the stars also” may mean the other planets or more galaxies.
Day 5 God breathes life into and speaks the DNA of perhaps 50 phyla or orders of fish, protists, water invertebrates, and perhaps 25 orders of birds.
Day 6 God breathes life into and speaks the DNA of land invertebrates (with trachea) 30 orders of reptiles and mammals, including dinosaurs, but we have no idea what size any of these were. Finally he forms Adam, then Eve from Adam’s stem cells, with the potential to evolve into the whole human race.
Under this proposal the earth’s surface is broken up at the time of Noah and sea water rises to the surface (as geologists note for the Early Archaean). The fossil record tells the story of recolonisation, not of origins, dated by a declining speed of light and therefore declining radioactivity to today’s speeds. This would fit geology cali- brated by the evidence of geologists eyes.
So before we evangelicals write off as allegory Genesis 1 and 2 (probably God’s view and Adam’s view respectively), let us see if it was not miraculously handed down to us as God’s accurate word making a lot more scientific sense than the ruling paradigm.
A fuller form of this is at www.earthhistory.org.uk under Thinking Creation Through.
Noah’s Ark Zoo Farm, Wraxall, Bristol