In The Beginning E equaled mc squared: Days 4 through 6
Roughly three years ago I listened to Sam Harris, noted neuroscientist, religious critic and author of — among other things — an article titled Science Must Destroy Religion, as he ridiculed the opening chapter of Genesis for its various contradictions with cosmology, astronomy and geology. At the time I considered the critique misplaced as it assumed that God’s intention in creating a record was to make sure that humanity could pass the science portion of the entrance exams it would face in 4 to 6 millennia. The punchlines he delivered did well among his audience though, but probably because their understanding of the purpose of scripture was as shallow as Sam Harris’.
Science seeks to describe what is and what was, and in some cases it uses that data to postulate about what will be. All of the stories it tells are descriptive. In contrast, the Bible cares little about what is and instead preoccupies itself with what should be. Its focus is not on human anatomy but on human behavior. You may critique its verses for doing a poor job of guiding that behavior but it’s the height of absurdity to critique its verses for doing a poor job of guiding physics. But there Sam was, before adoring fans, landing blow after blow on a phantom-god he created, then pronouncing himself victor once his phantom gave up the ghost.
It was probably a year later that I remembered Sam’s critique and again considered it unfair, but for a different reason. I reasoned then that, for all of its scientific shortcomings, the story in Genesis chapter 1 mirrors the cosmological record in at least one significant regard: it clearly moves from simplicity to complexity over time and has the nerve to perform that task from deep within an a-scientific, superstition-riddled era. It seemed to be, at the very least, an interesting anomaly where creation stories are concerned.
Then sometime last year I stumbled across a word in Genesis 1:20 that caught my attention, reminded me for a third time of Sam’s critique, and prompted me (out of spite) to finally study the origins of the universe to see if they could be bent in any way that would match the story told in the Bible (the facts have proven remarkably pliable.) And during that investigation I came across a statement by mathematician David Berlinski who says that there’s really only one reason that motivates people to become writers: vanity. And although I think there’s a lot of truth to his analysis, I believe that there’s at least one other reason to write:
Combat.
Because in a civil society where even fools recognize that you can’t just take up the sword against an irritating neighbor, the non-barbaric who want to fight take up the pen instead. So as I move on to Day 4 of Genesis’ creation story, I wonder, am I vain or am I violent? Either way…
“And God said let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and years. And let them be for lights in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth: and it was so. And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lessor light to rule the night: he made the stars also. And God set them in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth. And to rule over the day and over the night, and to divide the light from the darkness: and God saw that it was good.”
This verse has sometimes been used to make fun of believers and their stuttering God who divides light from darkness and then does it again a few moments later; but the insult doesn’t stick. The text itself clearly distinguishes between light’s dual introductions: in the first it begins to exist on a universal scale and in the second its permutations are presented as local phenomenon. In verse 3 the text says let there be light, in verse 14 it describes the different forms light takes when viewed from our planet.
And for Sam Harris’ sake it is worth noting that the presentation of the sun, moon and stars comes after and not before the introduction of photosynthesizers. Had the author got that order backwards Sam would have finally had a reason to laugh at the script; but unfortunately for him the biblical story introduces plant life on Day 3 and makes stars visible on Day 4. Another lucky guess for those ancient, nomad monotheists; because the cyanobacteria that slowly began filling the oceans 3.7 billion years ago dedicated their first 2 billion years of existence to extracting oxygen molecules from the sea and hurling them into the atmosphere. This massive oceanic belch displaced a good chunk of the methane, ammonia and water vapor that for billions of years had muddied the atmosphere . It was blue-green algae’s oxygenating efforts that turned the sky from dirty translucence (a frosted-glass-type sheen that allowed light to enter but made observing the galaxy impossible) to the transparent shield that greeted the very first pair of ocular nerves.
Anyways, moving on…
“And the evening and the morning were the fourth day. And God said Let The waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature that hath life, and fowl that may fly above the earth in the open firmament of heaven. And God made great whales, and every living creature that moveth, which waters brought forth abundantly, after their kind, and every winged fowl after his kind: and God saw that it was good. And God blessed them saying, be fruitful, and multiply, and fill the waters in the seas, and let fowl multiply in the earth.”
It’s the word “abundantly” in those verses that leaps off the page, especially for anyone who lived billions of years ago and spent any amount of time exploring pre-Cambrian oceans, especially along the northeastern coast of Canada where our pre-historic nautist would have swam above these 3.7 billion year-old hematites (structures left behind by ancient, sea-floor dwelling bacteria.)
Science seeks to describe what is and what was, and in some cases it uses that data to postulate about what will be. All of the stories it tells are descriptive. In contrast, the Bible cares little about what is and instead preoccupies itself with what should be. Its focus is not on human anatomy but on human behavior. You may critique its verses for doing a poor job of guiding that behavior but it’s the height of absurdity to critique its verses for doing a poor job of guiding physics. But there Sam was, before adoring fans, landing blow after blow on a phantom-god he created, then pronouncing himself victor once his phantom gave up the ghost.
It was probably a year later that I remembered Sam’s critique and again considered it unfair, but for a different reason. I reasoned then that, for all of its scientific shortcomings, the story in Genesis chapter 1 mirrors the cosmological record in at least one significant regard: it clearly moves from simplicity to complexity over time and has the nerve to perform that task from deep within an a-scientific, superstition-riddled era. It seemed to be, at the very least, an interesting anomaly where creation stories are concerned.
Then sometime last year I stumbled across a word in Genesis 1:20 that caught my attention, reminded me for a third time of Sam’s critique, and prompted me (out of spite) to finally study the origins of the universe to see if they could be bent in any way that would match the story told in the Bible (the facts have proven remarkably pliable.) And during that investigation I came across a statement by mathematician David Berlinski who says that there’s really only one reason that motivates people to become writers: vanity. And although I think there’s a lot of truth to his analysis, I believe that there’s at least one other reason to write:
Combat.
Because in a civil society where even fools recognize that you can’t just take up the sword against an irritating neighbor, the non-barbaric who want to fight take up the pen instead. So as I move on to Day 4 of Genesis’ creation story, I wonder, am I vain or am I violent? Either way…
“And God said let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and years. And let them be for lights in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth: and it was so. And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lessor light to rule the night: he made the stars also. And God set them in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth. And to rule over the day and over the night, and to divide the light from the darkness: and God saw that it was good.”
This verse has sometimes been used to make fun of believers and their stuttering God who divides light from darkness and then does it again a few moments later; but the insult doesn’t stick. The text itself clearly distinguishes between light’s dual introductions: in the first it begins to exist on a universal scale and in the second its permutations are presented as local phenomenon. In verse 3 the text says let there be light, in verse 14 it describes the different forms light takes when viewed from our planet.
And for Sam Harris’ sake it is worth noting that the presentation of the sun, moon and stars comes after and not before the introduction of photosynthesizers. Had the author got that order backwards Sam would have finally had a reason to laugh at the script; but unfortunately for him the biblical story introduces plant life on Day 3 and makes stars visible on Day 4. Another lucky guess for those ancient, nomad monotheists; because the cyanobacteria that slowly began filling the oceans 3.7 billion years ago dedicated their first 2 billion years of existence to extracting oxygen molecules from the sea and hurling them into the atmosphere. This massive oceanic belch displaced a good chunk of the methane, ammonia and water vapor that for billions of years had muddied the atmosphere . It was blue-green algae’s oxygenating efforts that turned the sky from dirty translucence (a frosted-glass-type sheen that allowed light to enter but made observing the galaxy impossible) to the transparent shield that greeted the very first pair of ocular nerves.
Anyways, moving on…
“And the evening and the morning were the fourth day. And God said Let The waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature that hath life, and fowl that may fly above the earth in the open firmament of heaven. And God made great whales, and every living creature that moveth, which waters brought forth abundantly, after their kind, and every winged fowl after his kind: and God saw that it was good. And God blessed them saying, be fruitful, and multiply, and fill the waters in the seas, and let fowl multiply in the earth.”
It’s the word “abundantly” in those verses that leaps off the page, especially for anyone who lived billions of years ago and spent any amount of time exploring pre-Cambrian oceans, especially along the northeastern coast of Canada where our pre-historic nautist would have swam above these 3.7 billion year-old hematites (structures left behind by ancient, sea-floor dwelling bacteria.)
Bacteria circa 2.5 billion years ago
Fortunately though we don’t need to take anyone’s word as to ancient life’s simplicity because the fossil record speaks for itself. Life somehow sprung into existence in bacterial form about 4 billion years ago, but having performed the superhuman task of willing itself extant, the creature spent the next 2.7 billion years producing nothing but uninteresting sequels.
After over a billion years of piddling around the ocean, this brown structure was still the best idea bacteria had. They built communities of course, CyanobacteriaLands all over the seas. And those Cyanobacterium formed a band called Blue-Green Algae; but at the end of the day, every time the band got together they just covered their one hit. It was 2.7 billion years of variations on the same exact theme; like 2.7 billion years of Brittney Spears’ music, or 2.7 billion years of Marvel movies.
But then, about 540 million years ago, life on planet earth changed its tune. Scientists refer to this dramatic introduction of organic complexity and variety as the Cambrian Explosion. It’s a well documented turn of events in oceanic life that brought about a multiplicity of never-before-seen body plans in a geological blink of an eye (see below and note that, given the amount of change that occurred, even a 100 million years is in fact a blink of an eye.)
After over a billion years of piddling around the ocean, this brown structure was still the best idea bacteria had. They built communities of course, CyanobacteriaLands all over the seas. And those Cyanobacterium formed a band called Blue-Green Algae; but at the end of the day, every time the band got together they just covered their one hit. It was 2.7 billion years of variations on the same exact theme; like 2.7 billion years of Brittney Spears’ music, or 2.7 billion years of Marvel movies.
But then, about 540 million years ago, life on planet earth changed its tune. Scientists refer to this dramatic introduction of organic complexity and variety as the Cambrian Explosion. It’s a well documented turn of events in oceanic life that brought about a multiplicity of never-before-seen body plans in a geological blink of an eye (see below and note that, given the amount of change that occurred, even a 100 million years is in fact a blink of an eye.)
These complex structures arrived so suddenly that it calls into question the fundamental premise of Darwin’s theory, which relies upon random mutations to generate the genetic variety that the environment then selectively favors. But unfortunately for Darwin, if genetic complexity is blindly driven, the time needed for a bacteria to experience all of the fortuitous accidents that enable it to become a sea slug exceeds the age of the universe. All the time since time began is insufficient to randomly extract vertebrates from the blueprints provided by blue-green algae. Again, quoting from the Scientific American’s 1979 special edition titled Life: Origin and Evolution, we read:
“Can we really form a biological cell by waiting for chance combinations of organic compounds? Harold Morowitz, in his book ‘Energy Flow and Biology,’ computed that merely to create a bacterium would require more time than the Universe might ever see if chance combinations of its molecules were the only driving force.”
Think about it this way, Darwin is calling for an error in the DNA replication process of an organism’s sex cells to improve that organism’s chances of survival. He’s asking for language errors to increase the language’s eloquence during the most delicate stage of the language’s development; but how often have you misspelled a word and waxed more eloquent? Although, actually that analogy fails to convey the enormity of the dilemma. The real question is how often have misspelled a word and waxed more eloquent, AS AN EMBRYO! I suppose it can happen of course, given enough time anything can happen, but if nature is just stumbling about then the odds of nature stumbling upon an irrelevant or a deadly mutation far, far exceed the odds of it discovering a solution.
But don’t take my word for it, Simon Conway Morris, Cambridge professor of paleobiology writes, “The number of blind alleys is so enormous that in principle all the time in the universe would be insufficient to find the one in a trillion trillion solutions that work.” And of the excruciatingly slow modulation of body plans that one would expect to find in the fossil record if Darwin had got it all right, Dr. Niles Eldrige of the of the American Museum of Natural History bluntly states, “The pattern we were told to find for the last 120 years does not exist.” And it only gets worse for the Darwinists as even their champions produce quotes that backfire. Of Darwin’s explanation of the route evolution must take as it travels toward biological complexity, apologist Richard Dawkins explains, “It is vanishingly improbable that the same evolutionary biology should ever be traveled twice.” But of the six phyla that developed visual systems during the Cambrian explosion, five of them leveraged variants of the genetic combinations found in the PAX6 gene group. So hundreds of millions of years ago when the blind sought sight — they didn’t just hit the vanishingly improbable jackpot twice — they hit it FIVE TIMES IN A ROW! I could stop there but no one drops the mic on Darwin’s theory quite like Lynn Margulis, ironic winner of the Darwin–Wallace Medal, which is awarded to scientists who achieve “major advances in evolutionary biology:”
“Natural selection eliminates and maybe maintains, but it doesn’t create… Neo-Darwinists say that new species emerge when mutations occur and modify an organism. I was taught over and over again that the accumulation of random mutations led to evolutionary change which led to new species. I believed it until I looked for evidence.”
Anyone who honestly studies Cambrian paleontology knows that the burst of complexity imprinted on our 500 million year-old rock formations presents an insurmountable engineering problem for natural selection. Looking at the
“Can we really form a biological cell by waiting for chance combinations of organic compounds? Harold Morowitz, in his book ‘Energy Flow and Biology,’ computed that merely to create a bacterium would require more time than the Universe might ever see if chance combinations of its molecules were the only driving force.”
Think about it this way, Darwin is calling for an error in the DNA replication process of an organism’s sex cells to improve that organism’s chances of survival. He’s asking for language errors to increase the language’s eloquence during the most delicate stage of the language’s development; but how often have you misspelled a word and waxed more eloquent? Although, actually that analogy fails to convey the enormity of the dilemma. The real question is how often have misspelled a word and waxed more eloquent, AS AN EMBRYO! I suppose it can happen of course, given enough time anything can happen, but if nature is just stumbling about then the odds of nature stumbling upon an irrelevant or a deadly mutation far, far exceed the odds of it discovering a solution.
But don’t take my word for it, Simon Conway Morris, Cambridge professor of paleobiology writes, “The number of blind alleys is so enormous that in principle all the time in the universe would be insufficient to find the one in a trillion trillion solutions that work.” And of the excruciatingly slow modulation of body plans that one would expect to find in the fossil record if Darwin had got it all right, Dr. Niles Eldrige of the of the American Museum of Natural History bluntly states, “The pattern we were told to find for the last 120 years does not exist.” And it only gets worse for the Darwinists as even their champions produce quotes that backfire. Of Darwin’s explanation of the route evolution must take as it travels toward biological complexity, apologist Richard Dawkins explains, “It is vanishingly improbable that the same evolutionary biology should ever be traveled twice.” But of the six phyla that developed visual systems during the Cambrian explosion, five of them leveraged variants of the genetic combinations found in the PAX6 gene group. So hundreds of millions of years ago when the blind sought sight — they didn’t just hit the vanishingly improbable jackpot twice — they hit it FIVE TIMES IN A ROW! I could stop there but no one drops the mic on Darwin’s theory quite like Lynn Margulis, ironic winner of the Darwin–Wallace Medal, which is awarded to scientists who achieve “major advances in evolutionary biology:”
“Natural selection eliminates and maybe maintains, but it doesn’t create… Neo-Darwinists say that new species emerge when mutations occur and modify an organism. I was taught over and over again that the accumulation of random mutations led to evolutionary change which led to new species. I believed it until I looked for evidence.”
Anyone who honestly studies Cambrian paleontology knows that the burst of complexity imprinted on our 500 million year-old rock formations presents an insurmountable engineering problem for natural selection. Looking at the
variety of body plans that popped into existence all over the globe, it’s almost as if some ancient said “Let The waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature that hath life.” And of course some other ancient, although much less ancient, did have an oral tradition that included that line, and then eventually someone wrote the line down, followed by this declaration, “and fowl that may fly above the earth in the open firmament of heaven.”
Now if some of you are tempted to point out that the geological record conclusively shows that the sea did not produce sea urchin and seagulls in tandem, please note that the Torah never uses the word “fowl.” But that’s probably because the authors didn’t have the word at their disposal. Ancient Hebrew contains less than 10,000 words, whereas the English language has in excess of 170,000. So when it came time to translate the Hebrew phrase “winged creature,” some English scholar from 400 years ago settled on the word “fowl.” And now is as good a time as any to admit that in writing this piece I have a tremendous problem on my hands. Because although I continually make claims as to what the Hebrews said (except for a few words here and there) I have no idea what the Hebrews said. I can’t read either Hebrew or Aramaic. All I have is the opinion of what three teams of 17th century English scholars say that the Hebrews said. But how much meaning is lost in translation as men, thousands of years later and from deep within the context of a foreign culture, seek to translate the meaning of phrases into an incompatible language? I don’t know.
Lots?
But what I do know is that the very first creatures to escape the grasps of the ocean were insects, winged insects. Even today many flying bugs pass through their embryonic stages underwater. Interesting huh?
“And the evening and the morning were the fifth day. And God said, Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after his kind: and it was so. And God made the beast of the earth after his kind, and cattle after their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind: and God saw that it was good. And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth. So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them. And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it… And God saw every thing that he had made, and, behold, it was very good. And the evening and the morning were the sixth day.”
As to the relevance of the events of Day 6, judge for yourself. I’m content to simply note that the appearance of man follows in the wake of the cattle and the creeping things and the beasts. But as the chapter closes I can’t help but finally point out that the narrator always concludes each day with the phrase “And the evening and the morning were the _____ day.” Why does he insist on moving from evening to morning?
To solve that mystery I steal the answer of physicist and author Gerald Schroeder (sadly theft is the only way I acquire insight,) who points out that the Hebrew word for evening is erev, the root of which means “mixed-up, stirred together, disorderly.” Which makes sense when you consider that as the sun sets it becomes increasingly difficult to distinguish a bush from a beast. On the other hand the Hebrew word for morning is boker, whose root word carries the exact opposite connotation: “discernable, able to be distinguished, orderly.” Built into the nouns used at the close of each day is a fascinating asterisk on the Second Law of Thermodynamics.
How very clever were those ancient, highly illiterate, often superstitious, sometimes brutal, a-scientific, monotheistic nomads. From where did they pluck this tale? And how lucky they were to compile a creation myth from within the confines of pre-history that can easily be made to align with Einstein’s general theory of relativity, the universe’s embryology, astronomy, our planet’s embryology as well as the embryology of life itself. And to top it all off, they have the nerve to remind the reader, poetically, that in this story, disorder begets order. How very clever of them.
I wonder, is the first Chapter of Genesis an anomaly or a signal? If an anomaly, what does the germ theory of disease have on chapter 15 of Leviticus? And why does humanity often contort itself into unsustainable positions so as to avoid beginnings? In the 1960’s Stephen Hawking achieved fame for divining a method of eliminating the singularity associated with the Big Bang. Supposedly — at the beginning of time — right as the universe compresses itself to the point where the laws of physics break down and everything becomes metaphysical, he can synthesize real numbers with complex numbers to produce imaginary numbers in just such a way that an empty, four-dimensional, spherical sac is created (not kidding) from which our universe springs (again, not kidding.)
So where did our universe come from, you ask?
Hawking: An empty sac defined by imaginary numbers
And where’d the sac come from, you ask?
Hawking: Use your imagination.
So what does your imaginary sac have on Pangu’s egg?
Hawking: Best selling books that millions pretend to have understood.
And lastly, as we leave Stephen behind, why have so many, for so long, placed so much faith in the random collision of atomic material as the only driver of biological complexity? And why do they cover their eyes and cover their ears as the probability theorists scream “Do the math!”? I can’t help but believe that many assume that if Darwin erred, even in the slightest, then they will be obligated by some cosmic force to receive the catechism and administer the same to their children. It seems to me that at least some in the scientific community operate under the false binary that if Darwin’s theory is incomplete then Mohammad did in fact ride the winged horse Burāq into heaven and therefore they must submit. The introduction of dogma in this sphere doesn’t make sense to me; but then again, didn’t someone once say that you if you can’t lead a horse to water then shoot yourself in the head?
If not, then I just did.
My friends… comrades… at this point in the story, given the data we’ve collected and subject to our best methods of interpretation, we must at the very least concede that life is not random. In spite of what you may have read we have no good evidence (actually, we have no bad evidence either) that life emerged from a vast nothing; but even if we could prove that it did, life certainly has not advanced accidentally and undirected from that primordial void towards the 21st century. Life seeks out solutions to the problems of its own existence. The great question is, how? The best answer is…
Sentience.
What other theory is there? Sentience is the best explanation for life’s ability to cut through the mind boggling improbabilities it faces. Life knows how to discover itself. If that statement feels drenched in theological implications, too bad. It’s where the data point and its how your world came to be…
In the beginning.
Now if some of you are tempted to point out that the geological record conclusively shows that the sea did not produce sea urchin and seagulls in tandem, please note that the Torah never uses the word “fowl.” But that’s probably because the authors didn’t have the word at their disposal. Ancient Hebrew contains less than 10,000 words, whereas the English language has in excess of 170,000. So when it came time to translate the Hebrew phrase “winged creature,” some English scholar from 400 years ago settled on the word “fowl.” And now is as good a time as any to admit that in writing this piece I have a tremendous problem on my hands. Because although I continually make claims as to what the Hebrews said (except for a few words here and there) I have no idea what the Hebrews said. I can’t read either Hebrew or Aramaic. All I have is the opinion of what three teams of 17th century English scholars say that the Hebrews said. But how much meaning is lost in translation as men, thousands of years later and from deep within the context of a foreign culture, seek to translate the meaning of phrases into an incompatible language? I don’t know.
Lots?
But what I do know is that the very first creatures to escape the grasps of the ocean were insects, winged insects. Even today many flying bugs pass through their embryonic stages underwater. Interesting huh?
“And the evening and the morning were the fifth day. And God said, Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after his kind: and it was so. And God made the beast of the earth after his kind, and cattle after their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind: and God saw that it was good. And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth. So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them. And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it… And God saw every thing that he had made, and, behold, it was very good. And the evening and the morning were the sixth day.”
As to the relevance of the events of Day 6, judge for yourself. I’m content to simply note that the appearance of man follows in the wake of the cattle and the creeping things and the beasts. But as the chapter closes I can’t help but finally point out that the narrator always concludes each day with the phrase “And the evening and the morning were the _____ day.” Why does he insist on moving from evening to morning?
To solve that mystery I steal the answer of physicist and author Gerald Schroeder (sadly theft is the only way I acquire insight,) who points out that the Hebrew word for evening is erev, the root of which means “mixed-up, stirred together, disorderly.” Which makes sense when you consider that as the sun sets it becomes increasingly difficult to distinguish a bush from a beast. On the other hand the Hebrew word for morning is boker, whose root word carries the exact opposite connotation: “discernable, able to be distinguished, orderly.” Built into the nouns used at the close of each day is a fascinating asterisk on the Second Law of Thermodynamics.
How very clever were those ancient, highly illiterate, often superstitious, sometimes brutal, a-scientific, monotheistic nomads. From where did they pluck this tale? And how lucky they were to compile a creation myth from within the confines of pre-history that can easily be made to align with Einstein’s general theory of relativity, the universe’s embryology, astronomy, our planet’s embryology as well as the embryology of life itself. And to top it all off, they have the nerve to remind the reader, poetically, that in this story, disorder begets order. How very clever of them.
I wonder, is the first Chapter of Genesis an anomaly or a signal? If an anomaly, what does the germ theory of disease have on chapter 15 of Leviticus? And why does humanity often contort itself into unsustainable positions so as to avoid beginnings? In the 1960’s Stephen Hawking achieved fame for divining a method of eliminating the singularity associated with the Big Bang. Supposedly — at the beginning of time — right as the universe compresses itself to the point where the laws of physics break down and everything becomes metaphysical, he can synthesize real numbers with complex numbers to produce imaginary numbers in just such a way that an empty, four-dimensional, spherical sac is created (not kidding) from which our universe springs (again, not kidding.)
So where did our universe come from, you ask?
Hawking: An empty sac defined by imaginary numbers
And where’d the sac come from, you ask?
Hawking: Use your imagination.
So what does your imaginary sac have on Pangu’s egg?
Hawking: Best selling books that millions pretend to have understood.
And lastly, as we leave Stephen behind, why have so many, for so long, placed so much faith in the random collision of atomic material as the only driver of biological complexity? And why do they cover their eyes and cover their ears as the probability theorists scream “Do the math!”? I can’t help but believe that many assume that if Darwin erred, even in the slightest, then they will be obligated by some cosmic force to receive the catechism and administer the same to their children. It seems to me that at least some in the scientific community operate under the false binary that if Darwin’s theory is incomplete then Mohammad did in fact ride the winged horse Burāq into heaven and therefore they must submit. The introduction of dogma in this sphere doesn’t make sense to me; but then again, didn’t someone once say that you if you can’t lead a horse to water then shoot yourself in the head?
If not, then I just did.
My friends… comrades… at this point in the story, given the data we’ve collected and subject to our best methods of interpretation, we must at the very least concede that life is not random. In spite of what you may have read we have no good evidence (actually, we have no bad evidence either) that life emerged from a vast nothing; but even if we could prove that it did, life certainly has not advanced accidentally and undirected from that primordial void towards the 21st century. Life seeks out solutions to the problems of its own existence. The great question is, how? The best answer is…
Sentience.
What other theory is there? Sentience is the best explanation for life’s ability to cut through the mind boggling improbabilities it faces. Life knows how to discover itself. If that statement feels drenched in theological implications, too bad. It’s where the data point and its how your world came to be…
In the beginning.
