"Now re-read Genesis 1, this time assuming the 'days of proclamation'
interpretation. Again, the sequence of the days poses a problem. Did God
'proclaim the existence of sky, oceans, land, and vegetation before the BEFORE
proclaiming the existence (or appearance)of the sun, moon, and stars? Surely
the conception of -- and the 'fine-tuning' of the fundamental laws of nature
necessary to allow for -- a planet, oceans, and plant life would ALREADY
include the formation of stars and moons, especially if the heavier elements
required for life are formed in stellar cores! Glenn chooses his punctionation
marks in Genesis 1 in such a way so that 'God doesn't talk funny.' And I
mostly agree with Glenn's punctuation marks. But the 'days of proclamation'
view seems to have God 'plan funny.' Again, I'm not saying the order of the
'Days' is a SERIOUS problem for 'days of proclamation,' but it IS a problem.
The order of the proclamations seems odd. I am not satisfied with this
interpretation."
You raise an excellent point. Lets see if I can find some wiggle room
here. :-) In order to charge the view with the crime of making God plan funny
we need to have some conception of what needs to be planned first. My reply
will certainly be tainted with the crime of anthropomorphising God, but it is
the only way I can express what I think might be an answer to your excellent
counter point.
I remember working problems as a physics student and not being able to go
from the assumptions given in the excercise to the required answer. The
professor, with his black heart, wanted us to be able to display a coherent
argument from the points given to the answer. When faced with the inability
to work the problem forward, it was occasionally possible to work the problem
backwards! In other words, peek at the answer given in the back of the book,
and go the other direction far enough to see how to work it in the proper
direction. The problem could then be turned in and both the professor and I
were happy.
How does this apply to God's planning? I would suggest that the most
important features of the universe are those that pertain to life. So, that
needed to have some considerable priority in the planning process.
So, Day 1 and 2 God proclaimed what the broad structure of the universe would
be. I view Day 1 as laying the foundation of the universe on energy. Day two
proclaims that there will be pockets of matter throughout the universe (scale
is not specified e.g. galaxies, or planets)
Day 3 was the proclamation which laid down the DNA,RNA, Protein phase spaces
which determine what happens with life as it evolves. Also, the necessary
habitation place for this life was thought of.Plants were necessary to produce
the oxygen for us.
Day 4 proclaimed that there would be certain types of stars with certain types
of planets surrounding them with certain types of satellites necessary for
life to form and not destroy the ability of the polymers with the above phase
spaces from existing.It is unlikely that life could live around a type O star.
Day 5 We finally get to animal life and Day 6 to man.
Thus, to conclude, in order to charge the view with making "God plan funny" we
have to have a basis upon which such a decision is made. This requires that
we know all the intricacies {sic?} neccesary for proper planning. I am not
sure we have all the requisite information.
I wiggled as hard as I could here! :-)Did I succeed?
glenn