We know far more about that now than we did then:
Astronomers now know that Earth is a rare, life-friendly “oasis in the big vastness of space,” as Borman later reflected. In the past few decades they have discovered that life on our planet depends on many improbable “rare-earth” factors. Earth must orbit the sun at just the right distance, with just the right axial tilt, and with just the right-shaped orbit and right planetary neighbors. Life depends on Earth having a moon of the right size at the right distance. The solar system as a whole must also reside in a narrow life-friendly band of space within our galaxy, the “galactic habitable zone.” We’ve also come to appreciate that we inhabit a privileged platform for scientific discovery. Earth’s crust is endowed with the abundant mineral and energy resources required for advanced technology, including that necessary for sending astronauts to the moon. Our clear atmosphere and location far from the center of a large galaxy allow us to learn about the universe near and far. At a deeper level, physicists now know that the universe itself exhibits extreme fine-tuning. Guillermo Gonzalez & Steve Meyer , “Apollo 8 and Our Privileged Planet” at National Review
Sadly, in the intervening years, computer-modelled claims about string theory, eternal cosmic inflation, the multiverse, and the universe as a computer sim have come to rival news of exploration of Mars for public attention. TED talks are easier, cheaper, and safer than space missions too.
Follow UD News at Twitter!
See also: What becomes of science when the evidence does not matter?
Here is the Christmas Eve reading of Genesis on Apollo 8, 50 years ago in 1968
Trivia note: Madalyn Murray O’Hair sued the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) because of the Apollo 8 Genesis reading.
Humorously, the case was rejected by the U.S. Supreme Court for “lack of jurisdiction.” 🙂
Also of note: In 1960, O’Hair, naming her son William as plaintiff, sued to have prayer removed from school. Her case was upheld by the Supreme Court in 1963. (Subsequently, SAT scores, (which had for decades previously to 1963 consistently ranked among the top SAT scores in the world for public schools), declined for 18 years straight from 1963 and have never recovered to their once top position in the world.
Verse:
Also of note: O’Hair’s son, William J. “Bill” Murray III, whom was used by his mom to remove prayer from school, is now a Christian, a Baptist minister on top of that, who is the chairman of the Religious Freedom Coalition. Which is an organization that seeks to protect religious expression in public, as well as protecting our other religious freedoms, from the continual attempts at censorship from atheists.
With that in mind, let’s remember that Jesus is the reason for the season!
May everyone on UD have a very Merry CHRISTmas.
I can see why atheists might be upset with the reading of Genesis 1 on Apollo 8. Clearly, from their perspective, besides violating the “separation clause,” the text is not scientific. Some Christians and Jews would agree that “Genesis is not a scientific text.” Indeed, there is a lot of disagreement among Christians as to exactly how Genesis 1 ought to be interpreted. (The astronauts, by the way, did not interpret the text, they just read it. It was Christmas Eve after all.)
Young earth creationists (YEC’s), for example, insist that the days of Gen. 1 must be interpreted as literal 24 hour solar days. Never mind the fact that the sun, according to the literal reading, wasn’t created till the fourth day. So, how can you have solar days before there was a sun? Furthermore, since the earth is a rotating globe and it’s always morning or evening somewhere, where do you begin your days?
Old earth or progressive creationists argue that days of Genesis should be interpreted figuratively. Clearly, from what we know from science the only viable interpretation is the day-age view. Astrophysicist turned Christian apologist Hugh Ross is currently the champion of this view.
Both the YEC and old earthers adhere to what is known as a concordist interpretation of the Gen. 1. That is, they both interpret the days as following a chronological order.
There is also a third non-concordist view, which interprets the days allegorically or non-literally. A lot of theistic evolutionists interpret the text that way.
So who is right? Logically it has to be one of these views or none of them. I don’t see how they are compatible.
YEC’s argue that the best (and only) interpretation is a plain strait forward reading of the text. They also dismiss the other two interpretations as being “accommodationist.” In other words, both interpretations are an anachronistic reading-into-the-text of a modern scientific view that’s primarily based on naturalistic presuppositions. Is it?
It turns out, however, that St. Augustine (354-430 AD,) one of the top 3 or 4 theologians in all Christian history, interpreted Genesis 1 from an allegorical non-concordist perspective. The article cited below discusses that view in some detail.
http://henrycenter.tiu.edu/201.....literally/
Since, Augustine lived in a pre-modern science era he can hardly be accused of being an “accommodationist.” Indeed, he had textual reasons for interpreting Gen. 1 the way he did. On the other hand, he was at least as far from the original writing of Genesis as we are from him. So was he in any better position to interpret it more accurately and correctly than we are?
Thoughts?
A few more trivia notes:
Apollo 8 was the first flight to take humans beyond the grip of Earth’s gravity. During the Christmas season of 1968, astronauts Frank Borman, James Lovell and Bill Anders flew to the moon, entering orbit around its cratered surface and then safely returning to earth. They did not land on the lunar surface, but they did beat a Russian spaceship named Zond into an orbit around the moon.
At the time, we were in a heated battle with Russia to be the first ones to land men on the moon.
The Christmas Eve reading of Genesis served as a counter-balance to the Russian propaganda that was propagated concerning what Yuri Gagarin, the first man in space, said, “I went up to space, but I didn’t encounter God.”
Like most claims from atheists, that claim for what Yuri Gagarin said was found to be false. In fact, Gagarin was, of all things, a devout Christian.
Also of note:
as well:
“So, how can you have solar days before there was a sun?”
Well, john: “Ye do err, not knowing the scriptures, nor the power of God.”
Firstly, the text says that on the first day God said, ‘Let there be light’ and THERE WAS light. If that is insufficient for you, then Revelation also provides a clue:
“And the city had no need of the sun, neither of the moon, to shine in it: for the glory of God did lighten it, and the Lamb is the light thereof.”
Parenthetically, positing a God who creates the entire universe in 6 days, and then quibbling that he needed light from a nearby star to see by, is kind of missing the point of the whole concept of God. Just saying, this is not the cleverest objection to a plain reading of the Word.
There are overwhelming linguistic, cultural, historical, logical, scriptural and theological evidences that the Genesis 1 account is intended to mean what it plainly says.
I’ve given you a starter.
My intention here was not to start a debate on how to interpret Genesis 1. It was only to point out that Christians (and Jews) have different interpretations of the text. Does one’s salvation depend on how one interprets the first chapter of Genesis?
For example Hugh Ross who pursued degrees in physics and astronomy, (he earned his PhD at the University of Toronto) became a Christian by studying the Bible on his own. From day one his interpretation was that the days in Genesis were not to be taken as literal 24 hour days. If his interpretation was wrong does that mean he’s not saved?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lSA3vS3auaE
Many other Bible believing evangelical Christians interpret Genesis 1 the same way. Are they all heretics?
Ross believes (as do I) that the Bible, in its original form, was divinely inspired, inerrant and infallible. However, what is not divinely inspired and infallible is anyone’s interpretation– that includes the YEC’s interpretation. And Ross could be wrong, I could be wrong and even St. Augustine could be wrong.
I was somewhat partial to Ross’ interpretation till I read St. Augustine a few years ago. Augustine was not reacting to scientific discoveries in geology or paleontology– those scientific fields did not even exist in ancient times– instead he drew his interpretation from the text alone. My tentative conclusion is that maybe original intent of Genesis was not to tell us anything scientific but simply tell who and what, not how or when.
However, there is a new interpretation put forth by a couple of evangelical Hebrew scholars with which I adamantly do not agree. They claim that the first verse of Genesis: “In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth,” is not a propositional claim but simply the title for chapter one. I disagree because that claim is not supported by the Gospel of John which begins “In the beginning was the Logos* and the Logos was with God and the Logos was God…” [*most English translations use the word “word” but Logos has a much fuller and deeper meaning]. John 1:1 is clearly making a propositional claim and it’s clearly alluding to Genesis 1:1. The text which follows (verses 3-18) is probably the most explicit statement of the incarnation that there is in the New Testament, which is where I want to transition this post since tomorrow is Christmas.
Why did the Apollo 8 astronauts read the first chapter of Genesis? Because they were the very first human beings to ever see the earth from the vantage point of the moon. They were awestruck. They were also worshipful.
One thing that not even an atheist can deny is that human beings are “hard wired” for worship. Worship has been a part of virtually every culture since the beginning of human history. Is there a true form of worship? I believe there is. “God is a Spirit: and they that worship him must worship him in spirit and in truth.” John 4:24
Ironically, even people who are somewhat secular in their world view are drawn to worship, and even the sceptic understands there are things that he does not understand that “transcend” him.
In the spirit of Christmas, here is a Christmas version of Leonard Cohen’s “Hallelujah” (Cohen was a somewhat “eclectic” Jewish-Canadian songwriter. I don’t believe these lyrics are his.) It’s a 2016 non-professional production featuring Irish school children that’s since gone viral.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bmx–WjeN7o
And as an encore, here is the “flash mob” version (original lyrics) which has also gone viral.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AGRfJ6-qkr4
Merry Christmas
Merry Christmas ! 🙂