“Old Testament scenario” of the universe’s formation and development Before examining the “Old Testament scenario” of the universe’s formation and evolution, several serious caveats points should be considered. The first is the Papal Commission’s conclusion for the Bible’s Interpretation in the Church of 1993. It says, “… The literal interpretation of the book Physics about the creation of the world is unscientific fundamentalism.”
Next: in the ordinary Julius Krempaský reading the book Physics the reader can get the impression that the text binds only to our earth, partly to the sun and moon, at most to our solar system. The author (or authors) was probably to provide basic information about the emergence and development of the real world. The fact that the information provided is associated with and happening on earth is related to the fact that in those times, the entire universe was reduced to earth as its center; everything else consisted only of objects of secondary importance. If we wanted to understand the book Genres’ text by attaching it exclusively to the globe and not to the entire universe, we would be in serious conflict with scientific facts. There is no doubt that the sun was here more like planet earth, therefore under the name “earth” in the statement: “In the beginning, God created heaven and earth,” it is not possible to understand our planet, but the basis of all the real world and from such a point of view we will try to some confrontation of the statements of the “biblical scenario” with the testimonies of the “scientific scenario.” For a long time, it was quite strange, and it was often seen as evidence of the mythical nature of the Bible, that the author of the book Physics placed the creation of the sun until the fourth day, but the birth of light already by the first day. Where did the light come from without the sun? Whatever the reason, we now know that this is the only way to do it. We have already stated that the first phenomenon generated by matter in the Big Bang was light, more precisely tough electromagnetic radiation. We also know that light forms part of a wide range of electromagnetic radiations, so the use of the word ‘light’ is justified here and, given the information our ancient ancestors had, in fact, only possible. This “light” in the form of relict radiation has been preserved until now. And so we see that when it comes to the first “day” of creation, the consistency between the information from the book of Physics and the conclusions of contemporary natural science is admirable. According to the scientific scenario, the only difference is that the “first day” of creation lasted approximately 300 thousand years. The divine activity of the second “day” of creation, according to the book Physics, focuses on “water separation.” According to the scientific scenario, there could not have been any talk of water yet because the oxygen, which formed an essential part of the water, did not exist at all at the time. But the division was still there. Not water, but hydrogen (more precisely its nuclei) separated from 88 Faith versus Science radiation as a separate phenomenon after the process of generating “light” was completed. This department corresponds with the biblical division of waters and has, as we have already stated, the scientific name ‘space recombination.’ Thus, even with the second day of creation, there are no scientific scenarios if we interpret the symbols used appropriately in Genesis’ book. On the third day, according to the book Of Physics, two things happened: on the one hand, a “dry land” was created, and with it a plant. The first of these events may be correlated with the third significant stage of the scientific scenario, space structuring, i.e., galaxies and stars. It is indeed a start-up to the emergence of “dry land” because such a phenomenon can only occur in a structured universe. The book Genres also puts the emergence of plant life into this day, which is unacceptable from a scientific perspective. The problem could be solved by stating that humanity did not consider plantation to be living objects during the creation of the book of Genres. For them, it was simply “the hair of the earth.” However, there is nothing to prevent us from seeing any hidden and non-derivative expression of a serious idea in this formulation. We know that life requires the presence of other elements known from chemistry, especially carbon, but these could only have appeared under the scientific scenario when the oldest suns erupted after their hydrogen fuel was depleted as a supernova, bringing gas-dusting material enriched with other chemical elements into space. From it formed the suns of the next generation, and only these could become the germ of life formation, i.e., plants. However, the latest information from scientific circles says that a certain – if very small – the percentage of chemical elements other than hydrogen and helium may have formed in the early stages of the universe, so that potentially even at these stages, the foundations for the revival of dead matter could begin to be laid. However, there is another and perhaps more likely version of the history of life on our earth. Many experts are seriously considering whether life could have been brought to our planet from anywhere in space. They argue that the time the interval of several hundred millennia, which experts in the scientific scenario of life are willing to admit, is to carry out complex processes leading to the recovery of dead matter too short. They believe that, as more likely, Julius Krempaský appears to be transferring life from other space locations (for example, through meteors). This inspires the idea that somewhere in the universe, the “dry earth” has formed in our location due to a more favorable grouping of conditions. Based on such a consideration, we could conclude that even a reference to a plant’s existence on the ‘third day’ of creation could have real notice value. Let us add that the unresolved problems around the emergence of life, especially among believers, are still significant. Many take the view that the revival of the dead matter is a direct intervention of the Creator. Many distinguished scientists (among them, for example, Nobel laureate I. Prigogine, but also the distinguished Christian thinker P. Teilhard de Chardin) believe that external intervention was unnecessary and that life can also be understood as a product of a spontaneous evolutionary process. We will return to this problem in a separate state. The fourth day of creation is the sun’s day and the moon’s formation, the day of formation of our solar system. There is no more serious contradiction between the biblical and scientific scenarios, not only in terms of content but also in time. Science can now describe this process quite mathematically and time it into the second half of the universe’s history, which correlates with biblical information. Some differences in the respective formulations can be seen in the fact that the Bible speaks of one solar system, but according to the scientific scenario, a relatively large number of them may have arisen. But then there is the quite natural question of whether intelligent beings also inhabit other solar systems. Optimists believe that there must be many civilizations in the universe, but many scientists believe that life is only on our planet. They argue that a solar system with ambitions to become an abode of life and man would have exceptional characteristics. And it is doubtful that, given the great randomness of the processes (leading to the formation of the solar systems), there might be another similar system somewhere. This is not impossible, but very unlikely indeed. If life does not actually occur anywhere else in the universe, then our earth is not an absolutely insignificant powder in the universe, as presented by astrophysics, but in the transferred sense of the word, its center because as the only 90 Faith versus Science object in the universe became the home of the crown of creation. And that would actually be a return to the original religious notion of our earth. According to the book, the entire day of the creation of life and living creatures is only the fifth day. These were mainly aquatic animals and birds. This correlates very well with the scientific scenario that this took place – at a microscopic level – after about 11-12 billion years. The sixth day is the day of the birth of terrestrial game and man. Here again, problems arise that require a more detailed analysis. First of all, the most discussed problem is whether a person in all its complexity is a product of development or whether direct divine intervention must be assumed. In favor of a second opinion, he could testify to a text from the Bible God said: Let us make man in our image, is alike.” However, this similarity applies only to the mental sphere, i.e., the ability to think and make free choices. If we add another text from that source to this austere quote, we are offered an interpretation that is much closer to the scientific opinion. We cannot doubt that man also has a long development and that it did not arise simultaneously in its current form. In another place of the Bible, we read: “Then God created from the clay of the earth man and breathed into his strides the breath of life.” Therefore, nothing but clay (earth) was needed to create a human being (physically) but clay (earth), which had already been developed here. For this creature to gain even “mental,” It was necessary for God to “instead of life” in him. Science cannot comment competently on this problem, as it has not yet found any bridge between biological systems and systems characterized by self-reflection and thinking. And so, it is quite possible that in the process of evolution, God intervened creatively, which is when he indeed man’s soul. Despite these still unclear problems, we can rightly state a perfect correlation between religious and scientific opinions even on the sixth day. On the sixth day of creation, one more, not uninteresting, the idea can be mentioned. If man had represented a phenomenon that had absolutely nothing to do with the rest of the living world, especially animals, he would surely have dealt with it in a biblical scenario, separate day. In fact, it is claimed that man was created by Julius Krempaský practically together with animals, thus apparently wanting to demonstrate that the “bodily” basis is the same. Following what modern science has come to – more than 90% of genes are common to the entire animal kingdom. Thus, we are moving towards the surprising conclusion that the Darwinian principle is actually implicitly present in the biblical text of creation. Therefore, we can conclude that the rapid development of science in modern times does not mean a deepening of the contradiction between science and faith. Still, on the contrary, the information from these two sources essentially converges on the same truths, only differently, formulated according to the specificity of the languages they use. It’s as if Paul Davies’ claim is fulfilled: “It may seem bizarre, but science provides a more certain path to God than religion.”
Visitors counter: 386,230
